[lojban-beginners] Re: lunra

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

la filip cusku di'e
> la .ianis. cu cusku di'e
> > {mi viska pa lunra} would be clumsy.
>
> You think so?

I would think so too. Using an outer quantifier, even if making a
strictly true claim, would seem to suggest that there are other
moons that I don't see. If there is only one moon, it doesn't
make a lot of sense to say that the number of moons that I
see is exactly one. The same goes for {su'o} or {ro}, if there
is only one moon, saying that I see at least one of them, or
each of them is equally misleading, even though it is true.

{mi viska pa lunra} makes sense if your purpose is to say
that you see exactly one moon: Earth's, not any of Jupiter's
for example.

> {mi viska lo pa lunra} might also be worth considering - roughly, "I see all
> of those one things which are moons".

That is what I would say to indicate that there is only one moon
in the universe of discourse. "I see the one moon".

> > By the way, is there a selbri for "unique"?

selte'i: "x1 is/are the only thing(s) with property x2 among x3"

So perhaps:

pavyselte'i: "x1 is the unique thing with property x2 among x3"

mu'o mi'e xorxes