| In a message dated 5/31/2001 2:39:36 PM Central Daylight Time,
araizen@newmail.net writes: I don't think that that will work, since "ro lo" is really equivalent {ke'a} only turns up if needed, i.e. if the sumti to which {poi} attaches is not in the first place, so that is not what is special here. It may be that it cannot be put in {lo} form, in which case, this partiuclar subject will not use that {rolo} version. That is, of course, one of the reasons for having several ways of saying the same thing, but, in this case, the first does always work (I think -- until someone fadges up a contrary case). <For a universal quantifier with existential import, I think we can use "rosu'o"/"su'oro", parallel to "roci", etc. for "all three". (Is there any convention for which number goes first in these compound quantifiers?)> I like the idea, but I wonder if it will work. {roci broda} comes in stages from {ro lo ci lo broda} as far as I can remember (and this explains the order); I think that (ro lo su'o lo broda} collapses to {lo broda} <(The book seems to think that lojban universal claims have existential import, ch. 16, sec. 8 [p. 399])> Why, so it does! I can't help feeling that this statement is contradicted elsewhere in the relevant sense. That is, as noted, {roda Q} always does entail {su'o da Q}, but an unchanged Q may mean that {su'o da Q} is nothing like "Some S is P" -- if Q is a conditional, for example, it does not magically change to a conjunction. If this really is uniformly covered, I take the Emma Litella line. |