Re: [jboske] carving the lo'e debate into shape (was: RE: My last will and

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

la xod cusku di'e

> But it's true that la djan cu darxi su'o lo ro nanmu, so what mistake am I
> making?

la djan cu darxi lo nanmu ze'a lo jetfu

CLL reading:

su'o da poi nanmu zo'u (la djan cu darxi da ze'a lo jetfu)
There is at least one man x such that: (John hits x all week).

xod's reading:

(su'o da poi nanmu zo'u la djan cu darxi da) ze'a lo jeftu
(There is at least one man that John hits) that happens all week.

Your reading is what I want to say. I don't want to say that any
single man was hit all week, John may have hit a different man each
day, for example. But the CLL reading with {lo} says that at
least one of the men was hit all week. You ignore the scope of
{lo} in almost all your Lojban writing, so in effect you use {lo}
the way I use {lo'e}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________
Choose an Internet access plan right for you -- try MSN! 
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp