From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Sep 07 17:09:55 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:09:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MkoHT-0003xp-4B for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:09:55 -0700 Received: from mail-ew0-f216.google.com ([209.85.219.216]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MkoHL-0003wm-MZ for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:09:54 -0700 Received: by ewy12 with SMTP id 12so3266491ewy.0 for ; Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:09:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=CU4tyz3XToM8yrNPlzA4yC5/iH+Zpb3VIap2TdTge4A=; b=o3sk8jDbABJoWAwflVG1w3t70lr8Qoh7C5+xFoQbdilpGT9d5CrNjGdcgm1HdNdrjo DWIaR7blyD9T/SGeoqWkBlIIDw9SgsSC6oWJU84V/t7wMWJg+vpNvSXxpMjKi18Aaj1t PXRH9EAA6uweR7NG0hsmIFKn3W/2xAfOB3Kvo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=lNTV7bl7Cjm6baYwncaf+g4DoUXZz9hcnZ93RP6wieVCRVlxtTAFjoNWNxDVYP70E4 aoBELdIwYJDUsDSOoAB5N3x6su29V0FpFKYACkZdWSE21yJFCr5WiJsTtocxCXHoa8lp 3079W72ZUWBu9CWrzY3uSXmM3XpWmJ4ghys+k= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.211.155.19 with SMTP id h19mr2402641ebo.48.1252368580959; Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:09:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <386480.83513.qm@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <9ada8ecd0909051425t78a046f3kddef2869e5c8e7a2@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560909060746n223ad9c7ic88894c3513a6ea1@mail.gmail.com> <9ada8ecd0909061401n35c37197j6ff4fac5b267fc5e@mail.gmail.com> <9ada8ecd0909061426r95b84efu76464f7327430f6c@mail.gmail.com> <395902.46727.qm@web50406.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <9ada8ecd0909061448p2eaa92ep19569f2b66793b76@mail.gmail.com> <386480.83513.qm@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 03:09:40 +0300 Message-ID: <9ada8ecd0909071709s5181e5d4r8e7803ac95581ad3@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban] Re: xorlo From: Squark Rabinovich To: lojban-list@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00504502ca87655d77047305c8c7 X-archive-position: 16097 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: top.squark@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --00504502ca87655d77047305c8c7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 5:04 PM, John E Clifford wrote= : > > >> On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Squark Rabinovich wrote: >> >>> Btw, what happened to *lo'e* and *le'e* ? They are not mentioned in the >>> pages about xorlo. Were they scrapped? >>> Anyway, since nobody gave a complete answer about xorlo, I'll take a sh= ot >>> at guessing how it should work. >>> Hey, we did the best we could. What problems remain. (Looking below, I >>> see you haven't yet really taken account of what we said.) >>> Lets start with *lo* . The syntax is >>> >>> [optional outer quantifier] *lo* [optional inner quantifier] *broda* >>> * >>> * >>> *lo broda means "at least one mass of broda >>> ". For example, lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno means "at least one group of >>> men carries the piano(s)". The size of the mass is unknown, in particul= ar it >>> can consist of a single object in which case it is in fact an individua= l. >>> Also, for continuous things like mudri or rokci the size might be >>> meaningless i.e. not representable as a natural number >>> I think the word "mass" is a bad choice here, as it brings to mind thin= gs >>> like water, which can, indeed, be handled by this technique but are bet= ter >>> treated in other ways. And the "at least one" doesn't work either, lo*= is just like >>> le except for being veridical, so "the group of actual *brodas I have i= n >>> mind" is better (except that "group" has a mathematical sound inappropr= iate >>> here (I use "bunch" and even that bugs xorxes, who wants no hint of an >>> entity between the brodas and their expression, so just "(Some) brodas"= ). >>> * >>> >> Entity or not, that's a philosophical question of little relevance, from my point of view. The important things is understanding how to use this thing. And since we need a name for it might as well be "bunch" (it might be "gree= n tomato" as far as I'm concerned). So, do I understand correctly that xorlo splits the old notion of "mass" into two notions: "mass" and "bunch". "Mass= " applies to continuous (uncountable) things whereas "bunch" applies to discrete (countable) things. Also *lo* is as specific as *le* but veridicial? How is it possible, then, to refer to unspecific objects? Suppose I want to say "there exists a *broda* such that..." or "all *broda* have the property..." Summing up, *lo broda* is "the bunch of* broda*" ? * * > * >>> * >>> *lo* *n* *broda* where *n* is a quantifier means "at least one mass of = * >>> broda* out of a mass of *n* *broda".* Supposedly, the later mass of *n* >>> *broda* is not just a random collection of *broda* but a group unified >>> by something. For example, >>> *lo mu nanmu cu bevri le pipno means "at least one group of men out of = a >>> group of 5 men carries the piano(s)". The size of the mass is still unk= nown, >>> but it can be at most n >>> No, the group (bunch) has 5 members (x: "Five men" that I have in mind >>> and who will be considered together in what follows)* >>> >> So *lo **n* *broda* is "the bunch of *n* *broda"? In particular lo ro broda= * is all of the *broda* in the universe? I suppose that answers my previous question? > *m* *lo broda* where *m* is a quantifier means "*m *individual *broda*". >>> For example, *su'o ci lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno means "3 men carry the >>> piano(s) (individually), and possibly some other individual men and/or >>> groups of men do this as well". On the other hand ci lo nanmu cu bevri >>> le pipno means "3 men carry the piano(s) (individually) and no other ma= n >>> or group of men does this".* >>> Note, importantly, that the three (or at least three) men are from a >>> bunch which will be treated together, not just any old men. Also, >>> fractional quantification makes some sense here, again as pulling out a >>> number of brodas, the number being specified as a fraction of the whole= .This >>> section, combined with what follows reminds me that I have forgotten ho= w to >>> talk about several bunches. I remember it as clever, but not the actua= l >>> technique >>> >> So *m* *lo broda* is *m* individual *broda* taken from a bunch? How do I sa= y just individual *broda* , without any bunch involved? > *m* *lo n broda where n and m are quantifier means "m individual broda* o= ut >>> of a mass of *n **broda*". For example, *ci le mu nanmu cu bevri le >>> pipno means "3 men out of a group of 5 men carry the piano(s) >>> (individually) and no other man or group of men within that group of 5 >>> men does this".* >>> I'm not sure about the "and no other group within that group" but >>> basically, this looks right. Note the joy of lo ci lo mu nanmu where w= e >>> get back to "three men out of our bunch of five, acting together...." >>> >> "and no other..." has to be there since it's *ci* rather than *su'o ci* . S= o an additional *lo *transforms the individual men back into a bunch? > >>> *loi* : The syntax is [optional outer quantifier] *pi* [optional >>> fractional outer quantifier] *loi* [optional inner quantifier] *broda* >>> * >>> * >>> * loi broda is the same as lo broda . loi n broda is the same as lo n b= roda >>> . >>> I think this is definitely wrong; masses are different from bunches >>> (although, in Lojban at least, masses can be treated as special kinds o= f >>> bunches). I think we are now at the blender cases, at least for things= like >>> humans. At the very least, the "members" of loi broda are not guarante= ed >>> recoverable in their original form: a fifth of loi mu nanmu need not b= e >>> a nanmu, only becomposed entirely of nanmu bits. >>> * >>> >> OK, so what's *loi broda* ? The bunch of masses of *broda* ? > * >>> m loi broda where m is a quantifier means "m masses of broda". For >>> example, su'o ci loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno means "3 groups of men >>> carry the piano(s), and possibly some other individual men and/or group= s of >>> men do this as well". On the other hand ci loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno = means >>> "3 groups of men carry the piano(s) and no other man or group of men do= es >>> this". The size of the masses is unknown. In particular any/all of the >>> masses can be of size 1 and thus in effect individuals. The size might = be >>> meaningless for continuous entities. >>> Another example is lu'i ci loi nanmu cu simxu lo nu damba which means >>> "three groups of men fight against each other", where "each other" mean= s >>> between the groups, not within them. >>> I'm not sure I followed all this but I think it is more or less right; >>> certainly, pulling individuals out of a mass cannot be the job of a >>> whole-number quantifier. And I think your examples make more sense wit= h >>> lo. >>> * >>> >> Perhaps *m* *loi broda* means "*m* masses of *broda* taken out of the bunch of masses of *broda*". Again, the question is what if we don't want them to form a bunch initially... > *m loi n broda where n and m are quantifier means "m masses of broda out >>> of a mass of n broda". For example, ci loi mu no nanmu cu bevri le pipn= o means >>> "3 groups of men which are subgroups of a group of 50 men carry the >>> piano(s), and possibly some other individual men and/or groups of men d= o >>> this as well". On the other hand ci loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno means "= 3 >>> groups of men carry the piano(s) and no other man or group of men withi= n >>> that group of 50 men does this". The size of the masses is unknown. In >>> particular any/all of the masses can be of size 1 and thus in effect >>> individuals. The size might be meaningless for continuous entities. >>> No, I think -- based on the above -- that it means m masses of n >>> brodas, drawn from all the brodas. >>> Alternatively, it might be a mass of m brodas drawn from the mass of n= . >>> * >>> >> Either *m* masses or a mass of *m* *brodas *, it cannot reasonably mean bot= h things. However, is there such a thing like "a mass of *m* *brodas*" ? Aren't masses inherently continuous? Perhaps it's *m* masses of brodas draw= n from the bunch of *n* *brodas ?* > * >>> Adding a fractional outer quantifier fixes the total size of the masses >>> involved. For example ci pi vo loi mu no nanmu cu bevri le pipno means >>> the same as above, with the added information that the 3 groups of men >>> together consist 0.4 of the total group i.e. 50 x 0.4 =3D 20 men. >>> I don't know whether your are portioning out a mass by weight or volume >>> or some other metrical way, but this just says you're talking about 0.4= of >>> it. >>> lo'i : The syntax is [optional outer quantifier] pi [optional fractiona= l >>> outer quantifier] lo'i [optional inner quantifier] broda >>> >>> lo'i broda means "at least one mass of sets of broda" >>> I think that lo'i is as specific (or is it definite?) as lo itself, >>> i.e., this means "the set of broda I have in mind." >>> * >>> >> Why "the set" of *brodas *? Shouldn' it be "the bunch of sets of *brodas*" = ? > * >>> lo'i n broda means "at least one mass of subsets of a set of n broda" >>> It just says =3Dthe set has n members. >>> * >>> >> But we might have several sets... > * >>> m lo'i broda means "m sets of broda" >>> I just don't think so; at best it means an m-membered subset of the >>> original set, and I am not sure it doesn't get us back to the members >>> directly. >>> m lo'i n broda means "m subsets of a set of n broda" >>> Ditto >>> * >>> >> There got to be a way to consider several sets. > * >>> Adding a fractional outer quantifier fixes the size of union of the set= s >>> involved. >>> I don't see this one; I would suppose they gave the number of members (= in >>> the subset) as a fraction of the original set >>> * >>> >> Ditto > *le lei le'i work in the same way except that a priori, I don't consider >>> all broda but a specific set of things-I-call-broda. The inner >>> quantifier specifies the size of this set. >>> la lai la'i work in the same way except that they refer to things named >>> broda . The inner quantifier is merely a part of the name. >>> I have tried to think of all this as systematic and it well may not be. >>> It is also an interesting question how sumti-based descriptions (which >>> are mentioned in the xamoi ckupau of the "reference grammar") work in >>> xorlo. >>> * >>> I don't see the problem here, as witness the example above. >>> 2009/9/6 Jorge Llamb=EDas >>> >>> On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Squark Rabinovich >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > In other words, since we're doing about 5 men and 3 women rather tha= n >>>> 1 man >>>> > and 1 woman, it seems that a quantifier is logically necessary, and >>>> such a >>>> > term cannot be a "constant". >>>> >>>> This might help understand how a term can have plural reference: >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_quantification >>>> >>>> mu'o mi'e xorxes >>>> >>>> >>>> To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to >>>> lojban-list-request@lojban.org >>>> with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or >>>> if >>>> you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help. >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > > --00504502ca87655d77047305c8c7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at = 5:04 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:


On = Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Squark Rabinovich <top.s= quark@gmail.com> wrote:
=
Btw, what happened to lo'e=A0and le'e=A0? They are not mentioned in the pages about xorlo. Were they scrapped?=

Anyway, since nobody gave a complete answer about xorlo, I&#= 39;ll take a shot at guessing how it should work.
Hey, we did the best we could. = What problems remain.=A0 (Looking below, I see you haven't yet really t= aken account of what we said.)
Lets = start with lo=A0. The syntax is

[optional outer quantifier] lo=A0[optional inner= quantifier] broda

lo broda=A0means "at least= one mass of broda
".=A0For example, lo nanmu=A0cu=A0bevri le pipno=A0means "at least one group of men carries t= he piano(s)". The size of the mass is unknown, in particular it can co= nsist of a single object in which case it is in fact an individual. Also, f= or continuous things like mudri=A0or rokci=A0the size mig= ht be meaningless i.e. not representable as a natural number
I think the word = "mass" is a bad choice here, as it brings to mind things like wat= er, which can, indeed, be handled by this technique but are better treated = in other ways.=A0 And the "at least one" doesn't work either,= lo
is just like le<= /span> except for being veridical, so "the group of actual brodas I have in mind" is better (except that "group"= ; has a mathematical sound inappropriate here (I use "bunch" and = even that bugs xorxes, who wants no hint of an entity between the brodas an= d their expression, so just "(Some) brodas").
=

Entity or not, that&= #39;s a philosophical question of little relevance, from my point of view. = The important things is understanding how to use this thing. And since we n= eed a name for it might as well be "bunch" (it might be "gre= en tomato" as far as I'm concerned). So, do I understand correctly= that xorlo splits the old notion of "mass" into two notions: &qu= ot;mass" and "bunch". "Mass" applies to continuous= (uncountable) things whereas "bunch" applies to discrete (counta= ble) things. Also lo=A0is as specific as le=A0but veridicial?= How is it possible, then, to refer to unspecific objects? Suppose I want t= o say "there exists a broda=A0such that..." or "all <= i>broda=A0have the property..."
Summing up, lo broda=A0is "the bunch of=A0broda&quo= t; ?
=A0

<= /i>
lo=A0n=A0broda=A0where n= =A0is a quantifier means "at least one mass of broda=A0out of a= mass of n=A0broda".=A0Supposedly, the later mass of = n=A0broda=A0is not just a random collection of broda=A0bu= t a group unified by something. For example,
lo mu nanmu=A0cu=A0bevri le = pipno=A0means "at least one group of men out of a group of 5 men c= arries the piano(s)". The size of the mass is still unknown, but it ca= n be at most n
No, the group (bunch) has 5 members (x: "Five men" that I have in= mind and who will be considered together in what follows)
So lo n=A0broda=A0is "the bunch of <= b>n=A0broda"?=A0In particular lo ro broda=A0is all of the broda=A0in the universe? I suppose that answers my previous question?
=A0
<= div>
= m=A0lo broda=A0where m=A0is a quantifier means "m= individual broda". For example, su'o ci lo nanmu=A0= cu=A0bevri le pipno=A0means= "3 men carry the piano(s) (individually), and possibly some other ind= ividual men and/or groups of men do this as well". On the other hand <= i>ci lo nanmu=A0cu=A0bevri le p= ipno=A0means "3 men carry the piano(s) (individually) and no other= man or group of men does this".
Note, importantly, that the thr= ee (or at least three) men are from a bunch which will be treated together,= not just any old men.=A0 Also, fr= actional quantification makes some sense here, again as pulling out a numbe= r of brodas, the number being specified as a fraction of the whole.This sec= tion, combined with what follows reminds me that I have forgotten how to ta= lk about several bunches.=A0 I remember it as clever, but not the actual te= chnique

=
So=A0m=A0lo broda=A0is m=A0individual=A0broda=A0taken from a bunch? How do I say just indiv= idual broda=A0, without any bunch involved?
=A0
<= div>
= m=A0lo=A0n=A0broda=A0where n=A0and m=A0are quan= tifier means "m=A0individual broda=A0out of a mass o= f n broda". For example, ci le mu nanmu=A0cu=A0bevri le pipno=A0means "3 me= n out of a group of 5 men carry the piano(s) (individually) and no other man or group= of men within that group of 5 me= n=A0does this".
I'm not sure about the &quo= t;and no other group within that group" but basically, this looks righ= t.=A0 Note the joy of lo ci lo mu nanmu where we get back to "three men out of our bunch of five, acting= together...."

=
"and no other..." has to be there since it's ci= =A0rather than su'o ci=A0. So an additional lo transforms= the individual men back into a bunch?
=A0
<= div>

loi=A0: The syntax is [optional outer q= uantifier] pi=A0[optional fractional outer quantifier] loi=A0= [optional inner quantifier] broda

<= div>
loi broda=A0is the same as lo b= roda .=A0loi=A0n=A0broda= =A0is the same as=A0lo=A0n=A0broda .
I think this is definitely wron= g; masses are different from bunches (although, in Lojban at least, masses = can be treated as special kinds of bunches).=A0 I think we are now at the b= lender cases, at least for things like humans.=A0 At the very least, the &q= uot;members" of loi broda are not guaranteed recoverable in their orig= inal form:=A0 a fifth of loi mu nan= mu need not be a nanmu, only becomposed entirely of nanmu bits.

OK, so what's loi broda=A0? The bunch of m= asses of broda=A0?
=A0
<= div>

m=A0loi broda=A0where=A0m=A0is a quantifier means "= m=A0masses of=A0broda". For example,=A0su'o ci lo= i nanmu=A0cu=A0bevri le pipno=A0means "3 groups of men carry the piano(s), and possibly some othe= r individual men and/or groups of men do this as well". On the other h= and=A0ci loi nanmu=A0cu=A0be= vri le pipno=A0means "3 groups of men carry the piano(s) and no ot= her man or group of men does this". The size of the masses is unknown.= In particular any/all of the masses can be of size 1 and thus in effect in= dividuals. The size might be meaningless for continuous=A0entities.<= /i>
Another example is lu'i ci loi nanmu=A0cu=A0simxu lo nu damba=A0which means "three groups = of men fight against each other", where "each other" means b= etween the groups, not within them.
I'm not sure I followed all= this but I think it is more or less right; certainly, pulling individuals = out of a mass cannot be the job of a whole-number quantifier.=A0 And = I think your examples make more sense with lo.=A0
<= /div>

Perhaps m=A0loi= broda=A0means "m=A0masses of broda=A0taken out of t= he bunch of masses of broda". Again, the question is what if we= don't want them to form a bunch initially...
=A0
<= div>
<= /span>m=A0loi=A0n=A0broda=A0where=A0n=A0and=A0m= =A0are quantifier means=A0"m=A0masses of=A0broda= =A0out of a mass of=A0n=A0broda= ". For example,=A0ci loi mu no na= nmu=A0cu=A0bevri le pipno= =A0means "3 groups of men which are subgroups of a group of 50 men car= ry the piano(s), and possibly some other individual men and/or groups of men do t= his as well".=A0On the other hand=A0ci loi nanmu=A0cu=A0bevri le pipno=A0means "3 groups = of men carry the piano(s) and no other man or group of men=A0within that group of 50 men=A0does this&= quot;. The size of the masses is unknown. In particular any/all of the mass= es can be of size 1 and thus in effect individuals. The size might be meani= ngless for continuous=A0entities.
No, I think -- based on the above --= that it means m masses of n brodas, drawn from all the brodas.
=A0Alter= natively, it might be a mass of m brodas drawn from the mass of n.

Either m=A0masses or a mass of m=A0b= rodas , it cannot reasonably mean both things. However, is there such a= thing like "a mass of m=A0brodas" ? Aren't mas= ses inherently continuous? Perhaps it's m=A0masses of brodas dra= wn from the bunch of n=A0brodas ?
=A0
<= div>

Ad= ding a fractional outer quantifier fixes the total size of the masses invol= ved. For example=A0ci pi vo loi mu no nan= mu=A0cu=A0bevri le pipno=A0means the same as above, with the added i= nformation that the 3 groups of men together consist 0.4 of the total group= i.e. 50 x 0.4 =3D 20 men.
I don't know whether your a= re portioning out a mass by weight or volume or some other metrical way, bu= t this just says you're talking about 0.4 of it.
lo'i
=A0: The syntax is [optional outer quantifier]=A0pi=A0[optional fractional outer quantifier]=A0lo'i=A0[optional i= nner quantifier]=A0broda

lo'i broda=A0means "at least one mass of sets of broda&= quot;=A0
I think that lo'i is as specific (or is it definit= e?) as lo itself, i.e., this means "the set of broda= I have in mind."
=

Why "the set" of = brodas=A0? Shouldn' it be "the bunch of sets of brodas&= quot; ?
=A0
<= div>

=
lo'i=A0n=A0b= roda=A0means "at least one mass of subsets of a set of = n=A0broda"
It just says =3Dthe set has n members.
<= /div>

But we might have severa= l sets...
=A0
<= div>

m=A0lo'i broda=A0means "m sets=A0of=A0broda"
I just don't think so; at best it means = an m-membered subset of the original set, and I am not sure it doesn't = get us back to the members directly.
m= =A0lo'i=A0n=A0broda=A0means "m subsets of a set= of n=A0broda"
Ditto

There got to be a way to consider several = sets.
=A0
<= div>

Adding a fractional outer quan= tifier fixes the size of union of the sets involved.
I don't see this one; I would suppose they g= ave the number of members (in the subset) as a fraction of the original set=
=

Ditto
=A0
le=A0l= ei le'i work in the same way except that a=A0priori, I don't co= nsider all broda=A0but a specific set of things-I-call-broda. The= inner quantifier specifies the size of this set.
la lai la'i=A0work= in the same way except that they refer to things named=A0broda=A0. The inner quantifier is me= rely a part of the name.
I have tried to think of all th= is as systematic and it well may not be.
=
It is also an interesting question how sumti-based descriptions= (which are mentioned in the xamoi ckupau=A0of the "reference= =A0grammar")=A0work in xorlo.
I don't see= the problem here, as witness the example above.
2009/9/6 Jorge Llamb=EDas &l= t;jjllambias@gmail.com>

On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Squark Rabinovich<top.squark@gmail.= com> wrote:
>
> In other words, since we're doing about 5 men and 3 women rather t= han 1 man
> and 1 woman, it seems that a quantifier is logically=A0necessary, and = such a
> term cannot be a "constant".

This might help understand how a term can have plural reference:
<= span> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_quantification<= br>
mu'o mi'e xorxes


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@l= ojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if<= br> you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.






--00504502ca87655d77047305c8c7-- To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.