From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Fri Sep 20 12:08:54 2002
Return-Path: <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 20 Sep 2002 19:08:54 -0000
Received: (qmail 55497 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2002 19:08:54 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217)
  by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 20 Sep 2002 19:08:54 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mailbox-15.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.115)
  by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Sep 2002 19:08:54 -0000
Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-71-4.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.71.4])
	by mailbox-15.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 429E520236
	for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 21:08:52 +0200 (DST)
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [lojban] tu'o usage
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 20:10:32 +0100
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMAEPIGIAA.a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
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)
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <125.16ccac89.2abb8510@aol.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811
X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 15888

pc:
> &:
> <<
> There is a difference between claiming something and implying something.
> This shows up, for example, if the whole sentence is negated. 
> >>
> Does this mean that {tu'o broda cu brode} and {tu'o broda na brode} 
> both imply that there is only one broda, while {pa broda cu brode} 
> does and {pa broda na brode} does not.  

{tu'o broda cu brode} and {tu'o broda na brode} both imply that there 
is only one broda, while {lo pa broda cu brode} claims there is
only one broda and {lo pa broda na brode} does not.  

Furthermore, {lo pa broda na brode} is true if there is not only
one broda, while {tu'o broda na brode} is true only if tu'o broda
na brode.

> That, if true, would be a reason for using {tu'o}.  

Indeed.

> I can't think of any reason to think it is true in Lojban (but 
> then, I have no idea what {tu'o} means in Lojban). 

It's a dummy word, similar to, say, zi'o. It has no meaning.

--And.