Re: [jboske] gadri

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

la lojbab cusku di'e

> >I think your proposal about le/lo goes in the right direction,
> >though you still talk of default quantifiers while the best
> >assignment is that they should have no quantifier: they should
> >be singular terms.
>
> That would reintroduce the concept of number, which Loglan/Lojban attempted
> to remove.

Singular terms can refer to groups. The problems of scopes are
mostly caused by quantifiers.

> >Does anybody use {du'u} that way? I think we use {du'u} for
> >any relationship, realized or not.
>
> I had a different impression, that lo [nu broda] and lo [du'u broda] was
> as much a claim of the reality/existence of the description as lo [tanxe]
> and lo [unicorn] in the ongoing discussions.

{lo du'u} is something that really is a proposition. The recent
discussion about {du'u} was to what extent is acceptable the
polysemy implied in having places that could take buth du'u and
nu as arguments.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963