| Getting back to fundamentals. I understand And as using {tu'o} in the following circumstance: 1 the number of items used from the set is fixed (usually one) or makes no difference at all 2 messing with quantifier placement and/or negations will not affect anything but will make for greater confusion than necessary. If this is all that is meant, then I think the usage is proper, useful, Lojbanic and cute (high praise all). My objection to it comes from what appears to be some further claim -- made not always by & and maybe indeed never by him -- that this usage covers some metaphysical specialization, not just simplification of _expression_. I confess that I don't understand what that metaphysical nicety is and certainly don't see how {tu'o} is to effect it. |