On 21.05.2013 00:24, Ian Johnson wrote:
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 05:49:08PM -0400, Ian Johnson wrote:at http://www.lojban.org/tiki/How+to+use+xorlo [1] . Someone might want to rephrase that.
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 5:40 PM, v4hn <me@v4hn.de> wrote:
> > {pa le karci} or {pa karci} (if a number preceeds the bridi you don't necessarily
> > need an article, you can think about this as {pa lo karci}) can be used
> > for that, an inner quantifier is not needed here.
>
> {pa karce} is rather unlikely to mean what you want. In particular it does
> *NOT* mean the same as {pa lo karce}. Instead it actually means exactly
> what {pa lo karce} meant before xorlo was implemented, that is "there
> exists exactly one car such that ..."
Agreed, I never use that and got confused when reading
lo with an outer quantifier, which is exactly the same thing
as just sticking a number before an item (i.e. "mu lo bakni" == "mu bakni"
== "five cows), works pretty much as before: "five things that really are cows".
mi'e la .van. mu'o
Oh wow, that's not good at all, that's completely inconsistent with
the formal definition in the proposal proper...
That's exactly the part that got changed in December 2011, when the sentence "When an outer quantifier is used without an inner quantifier, ''lo'' can be omitted." was removed. This means that "PA broda = PA lo broda" *was* part of the original BPFK-approved proposal from '04. (the recent change wasn't followed by another round of voting of course)
In any case, I don't think there is *such* a big difference between PA broda and PA lo broda. Both make claims about instances that broda, and neither of them select in-mind referents. It probably depends on one's conceptualization of lo broda.
mu'o mi'e la selpa'i