From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Wed Jul 30 14:56:10 2003
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:56:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lmsmtp04.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.114])
	by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12)
	id 19hyvQ-0006vz-00
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:56:01 -0700
Received: from oemcomputer (host81-7-63-44.surfport24.v21.co.uk [81.7.63.44])
	by lmsmtp04.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A58647EAF
	for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 23:55:27 +0200 (MEST)
Message-ID: <00d501c356e5$4c6e4360$3f3d0751@oemcomputer>
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
To: <lojban-list@lojban.org>
References: <20030730123834.80685.qmail@web41902.mail.yahoo.com>
Subject: [lojban] Re: le du
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 19:41:30 +0100
Organization: Livagian Consulate
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
X-archive-position: 6006
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

xorxes:
> --- Jordan DeLong <fracture@allusion.net> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 11:11:25AM -0700, Jorge Llambmas wrote:
> > > Is there any brivla with even less content that will do instead?
> > [...]
> > 
> > Yes.  {co'e}.
> 
> But {co'e} is heavily context dependant. {ro da du de} is always
> true. {ro da co'e de} may be true or false, depending on context:
> before we can evaluate it we need to work out what co'e stands for 
> in this case and then see whether it holds for everything. 

The original question can be reposed as: What fills the gap in the
following pattern?

go'a-series  : ra-series
broda-series : ke'a-series
bu'a-series  : da-series
co'e         : ???????
 
> Another possibility we have not yet considered is {le bu'a}.

We have not considered the more general question of what bu'a
means when not quantified in the prenex. Personally, I would
see it as the brivla equivalent of ce'u, in which case it wouldn't
be equivalent to {le du}.

--And.