<<
err, but then I can use {pa broda} which the book says is syntactically
the same as {lo pa broda}, and get only one marker
>>
The book had better say {pa broda} is the same as {pa lo broda}, NOT {lo pa broda}.
<<
I agree that in this case, all these amount to the same thing, but:
>>
Yes, there are often practical reasons for using one rather than the other (never for {tu'o} so far as I can tell). I was just talking about the truth conditions.
&:
<<
There is a difference between claiming something and implying something.
This shows up, for example, if the whole sentence is negated.
>>
Does this mean that {tu'o broda cu brode} and {tu'o broda na brode} both imply that there is only one broda, while {pa broda cu brode} does and {pa broda na brode} does not. That, if true, would be a reason for using {tu'o}. I can't think of any reason to think it is true in Lojban (but then, I have no idea what {tu'o} means in Lojban).
| Yahoo! Groups Sponsor | |
|
|
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.