From sentto-44114-15875-1032451270-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Thu Sep 19 09:03:29 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 19 Sep 2002 09:03:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n27.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.83]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17s3m3-0003ph-00 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 09:03:27 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-15875-1032451270-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.199] by n27.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 19 Sep 2002 16:01:10 -0000 X-Sender: nessus@free.fr X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 19 Sep 2002 16:01:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 32886 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2002 16:01:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 Sep 2002 16:01:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mel-rto3.wanadoo.fr) (193.252.19.233) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Sep 2002 16:01:08 -0000 Received: from mel-rta8.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.79) by mel-rto3.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007) id 3D760D7C008D88DB for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 18:01:07 +0200 Received: from ftiq2awxk6 (193.248.238.30) by mel-rta8.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007) id 3D8011E30044B4BC for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 18:01:07 +0200 Message-ID: <00cb01c25ff7$7eba61e0$1eeef8c1@ftiq2awxk6> To: "lojban" References: X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 From: "Lionel Vidal" X-Yahoo-Profile: cmacinf MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 18:12:48 +0200 Subject: Re: [lojban] tu'o usage Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 1363 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: nessus@free.fr Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list And: > > err, but then I can use {pa broda} which the book says is syntactically > > the same as {lo pa broda}, > > This is incorrect. {pa broda} = {pa lo su'o broda}. Sorry I made a mistake, but I also disagree. {pa broda} is actually the same as {pa lo ro broda} which can be simplified in {pa lo broda}. Note that {pa broda} is nonetheless still the same in our case than {tu'o broda}. > > Why not indicate your reader clearly that exactly one thing satisfy > > the description if it is indeed the case? This will relieve the reader to > > draw that eventually needed conclusion from the use of {tu'a}. > > You mean {tu'o}? The reasons are those I gave in the message you are > replying to. I indeed meant {tu'o} sorry. IMO Your reasons put a burden on your reader without any obvious advantage. > There is a difference between claiming something and implying something. > This shows up, for example, if the whole sentence is negated. Of course, but that is not the point. The point is that to understand fully the sumti I will need the result of the implication. Why then introduce a new quantifier when the same effect, that is a correct interpretation of the referent by your reader, could be obtain with {pa}? mu'omi'e lioNEL ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> 4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/GSaulB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/