[lojban-beginners] Re: ke'a

["Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On 7/22/08, Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 9:29 AM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/22/08, Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 8:22 AM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >  lo nanmu poi mi viska ro lo karce poi ke'a vecnu ke'a
> >> >  The man who I saw all the cars he sold.
> >> >
> >> > In English, there is a logically equivalent reversed version:
> >> >
> >> >  The man who sold only those cars I saw.
> >> >
> >> > But in Lojban we don't have a restricted quantifier "only", so
> >> > we don't seem to have that option.
> >>
> >>  lo nanmu poi ke'a vecnu ro lo po'o karce poi mi viska ke'a
> >> ?
> >
> > The "ro" is wrong, because I might have seen some other
> > car he didn't sell.
> >
> > And the po'o says that he didn't sell _anything_ besides
> > the cars I saw, but what we need to say is that he didn't sell
> > _any car_ besides the ones I saw. He might have sold other
> > things.
>
> Oh, I thought that's what you wanted.  You wanted to say the only cars
> he sold were those that you saw, but he might not have sold all of
> those?

I wanted something logically equivalent to:

> >> >  lo nanmu poi mi viska ro lo karce poi ke'a vecnu ke'a
> >> >  The man who I saw all the cars he sold.

but that will also move "vecnu" up and "viska" down.

> lo nanmu poi ke'a vecnu lo karce poi po'o mi viska ke'a
>
> works fine for that.  "The man who sold cars that were (only those) seen by me.

{po'o} seems to apply to the restriction on the cars, not
to the cars. I read that as "He sold cars that are only
restricted to my having seen them", but it doesn't preclude
his selling other cars as well.

mu'o mi'e xorxes