From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Mon Jul 30 19:23:39 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 31 Jul 2001 02:23:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 38928 invoked from network); 31 Jul 2001 02:23:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 31 Jul 2001 02:23:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO relay3-gui.server.ntli.net) (194.168.4.200) by mta3 with SMTP; 31 Jul 2001 02:23:38 -0000 Received: from m27-mp1-cvx2c.bre.ntl.com ([62.253.88.27] helo=andrew) by relay3-gui.server.ntli.net with smtp (Exim 3.03 #2) id 15ROwr-0000QY-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 03:07:54 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] RE:{goi} addendum Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 03:22:51 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 9025 Jorge: > la pycyn cusku di'e > > >The reason for the rule on double quantifiers that Lojban uses is almost > >certainly the enormous difficulty within logic otherwise of saying > >something > >like "Three men came into the saloon. Two of them well to the bar. One of > >these ordered a lime rickey." > > One way of saying this without getting into trouble is: > > le ci nanmu cu nerkla le barja i le re le ci nanmu cu klama > le barjyjbu i le pa le re le ci nanmu cu cpedu lo'e ladru Or {le ci nanmu cu nerkla le barja i le re ra cu klama le barjyjbu i le pa ra cu cpedu lo'e ladru} or {le ci nanmu cu nerkla le barja i le re le go'i cu klama le barjyjbu i le pa le go'i cu cpedu lo'e ladru} ? IOW, pc's sentences seem dead easy to render simply. --And.