RE: [jboske] RE: [lojban] Re: tu'o du'u (was Re: xoi'a)

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

John:
> And Rosta scripsit:
> 
> > I forget whether CLL actually says {le} means {su'o pa le}. The
> > dialect I speak definitely has it meaning {ro le}.
> 
> "le" means "ro le su'o", so And is correct. The reason for the "su'o"
> is that the set "le" refers to can't be empty, so on pc's view "ro le ro"
> would be just as good.
> 
> > Anyway, it is certainly true that {le broda} makes no claim about
> > the cardinality of {le'i broda}.
> 
> Not so. It makes the claim that the cardinality is nonzero.

Put it this way: {le broda} does not make claims about the
cardinality of its referent. But it does have a referent.

> > But -- usage aside -- I do think
> > it implies "it is not the case that the cardinality of le'i 
> > broda is 1 and that the addressee can be expected to know this".
> 
> This strikes me as utterly bogus. You should not use le'i broda when you
> have in mind a singleton set? How is the listener to know how many brodas
> you have in mind?
> 
> Or did you mean "lo'i broda is not a singleton"?

Whoops. Sorry -- yes, I meant "lo'i broda is not a singleton".

--And.