Re: tu'o du'u (was Re: xoi'a)

[Jordan DeLong <fracture@allusion.net>]

On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 09:55:05AM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 09:47:21AM -0400, pycyn@aol.com wrote:
> > In a message dated 10/2/2002 7:15:29 PM Central Daylight Time, 
> > lojban-out@lojban.org writes:
> > <<
> > > Also I think saying "lo nazbi be mi" is more or less wrong.  If
> > > you're talking about your nose, you must know it, so you really
> > > should say "le nazbi be mi".  Same thing as the du'u stuff.  The
> > > "a nose of mine" reading is much more like "lo nazbi" than "le
> > > nazbi".  The inner ro on "le" does *not* imply I have multiple
> > > noses.  But using "lo" insead of "le" would imply I'm not sure
> > > which thing is my nose.
> > >>
> > Errh.  Isn't the assumed inner quantifier on {le} {su'o} and the outer {ro}?
> 
> You're correct.  I should've said the inner su'opa on ro doesn't

meaning the inner su'opa on *le*.

*thwacks himself*

> claim that there are neccesarily more (nazbi be mi) than this one.

-- 
Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
                                     sei la mark. tuen. cusku