Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 19:12:50 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711300012.TAA10769@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Sender: Lojban list From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Subject: Re: Indirect questions X-To: lojban To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1203 X-From-Space-Date: Sat Nov 29 19:12:51 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU cu'u la lojbab >Well I checked the refgram particularly because I thought that, in the >recently mentioned discussion of 2 years ago fall, YOU had convinced >Cowan >that the quantification on lei should be the same as on loi (i.e. pisu'o). No, it wasn't me. As I recall it, at some point both {lei} and {loi} had piro as default. I remember arguing that {loi} should have {pisu'o}, but when both were changed to {pisu'o} I argued that {lei} should keep {piro}. For some reason John wanted both to have the same quantifier. The same thing happens with le'i/lo'i. They're both {piro} even though {pisu'o} would make more sense for {lo'i} in my opinion. All this discussion is in the archives anyway, if anyone is interested enough to check it. >Prior to that it WAS piro , and Cowan was talked out of this by ledo'o >arguments on the nature of lei and masses. Certainly not by my arguments. Or rather, I argued for the change for loi, but he went on to change lei as well. > The hostory of it being the other >way is why you undoubtedly recall usage being piro. Usage after the change is still {piro}. >.oiro'e a'o le mi ve ciksi cu sidju le do menli le nu surla >mi'e lojbab co'o mi'e xorxes