Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban Re: mei (was Pro-Sumti) In-Reply-To F64iZrAEXCUOGqcaZIc

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la pycyn cusku di'e

> We can't readily get that hidden quantifier to light, the easiest is {su'o 
> lo
> pisu'o loi broda}  -- and this {lo} cannot be dropped.

Another way of doing that, using my preferred version
of {mei}, whould be: {[su'o] lo su'omei be loi broda}

> And a specific
> submass would be {le pisu'o loi broda} or (to be really safe) {le pa le
> pisu'o loi broda} (we can't just tuck the {pa} inside the first {le} either
> or we get a supermass).

And that would be {le su'omei be loi broda}, which in this
case can be explicitly singularized to {le paboi su'omei
be loi broda}, avoiding the double selection implied by the
double {le}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com