From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Fri Jan 07 12:12:06 2005 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 81010 invoked from network); 7 Jan 2005 20:12:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.172) by m24.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Jan 2005 20:12:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Jan 2005 20:12:06 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1Cn0Ss-0004Qo-2a for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 07 Jan 2005 12:12:06 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Cn0Sd-0004QC-Rl; Fri, 07 Jan 2005 12:11:51 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 07 Jan 2005 12:11:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from web41902.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.153]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Cn0ST-0004Ph-Jy for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 07 Jan 2005 12:11:41 -0800 Received: (qmail 75701 invoked by uid 60001); 7 Jan 2005 20:11:10 -0000 Message-ID: <20050107201110.75699.qmail@web41902.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.49.74.2] by web41902.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 07 Jan 2005 12:11:10 PST Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 12:11:10 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <00a001c4f4f2$8ac75a00$42e1fea9@oemcomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-archive-position: 9201 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar X-list: lojban-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 64.81.49.134 From: Jorge "Llambías" Reply-To: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Subject: [lojban] Re: Holiday Present from the BPFK: The gadri Proposal Has Been Completed X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=142311107 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 23593 --- And Rosta wrote: > This said, I don't understand how come "ci lo vo nanmu" quantifies > over the four referents of "lo vo nanmu", yet "ci loi vo nanmu" > quantifies not over the one referent of "loi vo nanmu" We don't know in general that {loi vo nanmu} has a single referent. All we know is that its referent(s) is/are quartets of men. {loi vo nanmu} = {lo gunma be lo vo nanmu}, and for any broda in general the number of referents of {lo broda} is not specified. > but > rather over the quasi-infinite number of things that "loi vo > nanmu" can refer to. It's not that I see anything objectionable > to this -- indeed, it's expressively a good thing -- but I don't > understand the basis for the claim about PA me . {loi PA broda} behaves like {lo gunma be lo PA broda}, but because it is a more compact notation it doesn't have a place to indicate the number of its referents, whereas {lo gunma} does. mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail