Re: [lojban-beginners] Question about {roda}

[".arpis." <rpglover64+jbobau@gmail.com>]

It seems to me that the contention is not so much about {da} but mostly about {ro}, and to whether or not an implicit {poi co'e} is permitted in most situations.

This seems perfectly fine (if imprecise) to me, provided this does not apply in a logical prenex.
People who know lojban better than I seem to be having a discussion about this, and I'm trying to keep up and learn.

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Remo Dentato <rdentato@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would read that as "everything (which are people) hate me".  So you're
> still saying {roda xebni mi} while also implying that {roda prenu}.

Yes, I was just saying that since you had {noi}, you might use {poi}
instead and really restrict {da}.

I hope we all will end up with a sort of common understanding.
At the moment I'm still on the side of those that say that {da} may be
implicitly bound by by reasonable assumptions on the context (the
universe of discourse), I'm no longer sure of who's against this point
of view (and why).

remo

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.

-- 
mu'o mi'e .arpis.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.