From pycyn@aol.com Thu Oct 03 06:47:33 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 3 Oct 2002 13:47:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 20419 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2002 13:47:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Oct 2002 13:47:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m03.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.6) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Oct 2002 13:47:32 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id r.70.23f833f6 (17377) for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:47:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <70.23f833f6.2acda469@aol.com> Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:47:21 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tu'o du'u (was Re: xoi'a) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_70.23f833f6.2acda469_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 16350 --part1_70.23f833f6.2acda469_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/2/2002 7:15:29 PM Central Daylight Time, lojban-out@lojban.org writes: << > Also I think saying "lo nazbi be mi" is more or less wrong. If > you're talking about your nose, you must know it, so you really > should say "le nazbi be mi". Same thing as the du'u stuff. The > "a nose of mine" reading is much more like "lo nazbi" than "le > nazbi". The inner ro on "le" does *not* imply I have multiple > noses. But using "lo" insead of "le" would imply I'm not sure > which thing is my nose. >> Errh. Isn't the assumed inner quantifier on {le} {su'o} and the outer {ro}? --part1_70.23f833f6.2acda469_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/2/2002 7:15:29 PM Central Daylight Time, lojban-out@lojban.org writes:

<<

Also I think saying "lo nazbi be mi" is more or less wrong. If
you're talking about your nose, you must know it, so you really
should say "le nazbi be mi". Same thing as the du'u stuff. The
"a nose of mine" reading is much more like "lo nazbi" than "le
nazbi". The inner ro on "le" does *not* imply I have multiple
noses. But using "lo" insead of "le" would imply I'm not sure
which thing is my nose

.
>>
Errh. Isn't the assumed inner quantifier on {le} {su'o} and the outer {ro}?

--part1_70.23f833f6.2acda469_boundary--