[forwarded message]

[ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>]

I think this was inadvertently sent to me rather than the whole list.
As Steven says, I was suggesting {ni} means "fuzz factor".

------- Forwarded Message
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 23:08:15 -0500
>From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Wed May 24 18:29:15 1995
Date:         Wed, 24 May 1995 19:04:27 +0100
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Subject:      Re: quantifiers on sumti - late response
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>

> You can always use the last rule (which may never expand
> to include a selbri at all) to get such phrases as "re le ci do" (2 of
> the 3 of you).

How does this work? Are {suo do} and {ro do} okay as sumti?

> >  One problem is the
> >meaning of {le fa le brode ku broda}, but that already exists: what
> >does {le broda be fa le brode} mean?
> There are many possible expressions that don't have a clear-cut meaning.
> To exclude "be fa" we would have had to put "fa" in a different selma'o
> from the rest of the FA members, and double all the other rules that
> allow FA just to exclude this one.  Who cares?
> Or rather - if you insist, I'll come up with a semantics for it - I
> would say that {le broda be fa le brode} means "le broda voi brode" -
> the broda which also may be described as a brode.  But I would never use
> the former instead of the latter - more confusing and complex - except
> perhaps for some poetical parallelism between broda and brode.

I used this construction (with the meaning you attribute to it) in my
first Lojban writing.

> Anyone for "setesevexeseteve blanu"  (especially funny since blanu is
> a 1 place brivla)

I've used multiple SEs (including vacuous ones, I think).

---
And