Re: [jboske] lo'ie != lo'ei

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la djorden cusku di'e

> Hrm. Perhaps it *really* is a universal quantifier (but nonimporting,
> because there may not be such a doctor, or whatever)? You want/need/etc
> *all* boxes/doctors. As soon as you have one, though, your desire for
> the others will cease.

But needing a box is clearly different from needing every box.
If you use {ro} for "need a box", what do you say when you really
do need every box. It is unlikely that you will ever need every
box in the world, but "I need any one of those boxes" and "I need
every one of those boxes" are clearly different.

> So,
> 	I need a/any doctor
> 	mi nitcu rono mikce
>
> 	I need a unicorn
> 	mi nitcu rono paxyseljirna
> "ro" would be used instead of "rono" if you want to claim that such
> things do in fact exist.
>
> I'm not fully convinced of the above, so please tell me why it
> doesn't work, if it doesn't work.

{ro} by itself doesn't work because of what I said above.
{rono} means that ro=no, just like {roci} means ro=ci.
{mi nitcu rono pavyseljirna} means "I need no unicorns, (and
there are no unicorns)".

mu'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail