[bpfk] Uniqueness across quantification.

[Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>]

In {ci remna cu xabju pa zdani}, we have 3 houses total, one for
each person, due to distributivity.  But as far as I can tell, the
red book does not specificy if each of those houses is distinct;
they could all be living in one house, or sharing 2, or one each,
there's no way to tell.  Worse, there's no way to explicitely mark
one case or the other.

1.  Am I missing something?

2.  Is there a decent, short way to handle this rigorously?  {ro le
ci zdani cu se xabju pa le ci remna .i je re le ci remna cu xabju pa
le ci zdani} is the best I've found, and it's pretty shitty.

3.  If the answer to #2 is no, does this seem worthy of explicitely
handling?  If so, what solution do you propose?

I note http://dag.github.com/cll/16/7/ for your consideration, as
that seems the only relevant section.  I imagine {po'o} could be
used here, perhaps with the termset trick shown there.

-Robin

-- 
http://singinst.org/ :  Our last, best hope for a fantastic future.
Lojban (http://www.lojban.org/): The language in which "this parrot
is dead" is "ti poi spitaki cu morsi", but "this sentence is false"
is "na nei".   My personal page: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/rlp/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list?hl=en.