Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate

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

la pycyn cusku di'e

> <<In that case, you would claim:
>
>      la djak naku djuno ro du'u la djil sipna
>      Jack doesn't know (every) that Jill is asleep.
>
> Even though he does know that Jill is asleep. Odd at least.
> >>
>
> Why so?

Because it doesn't correspond to anything in natlangs as far
as I can tell.


> <<
> {tu'o} suggests itself to me: the non-quantifier quantifier.
> I suppose I have been using {lo'e} as {tu'o lo}.
> >>
> And this differs from {su'o lo} exactly how?

In that tu'o does not quantify over the members of lo'i.
It only extracts the intension.


> Why do {le} and {lo} bring in manifestations.  They refer to members of the
> set lo'i nu mi citka lo cakla, and every member of that set is an event,
> abstract, not an occasion, manifestation.

What would {re nu mi citka lo cakla} be, other than two occasions
real or imaginary, but occasions?

If they are not occasions, is there any way to refer to occasions
in Lojban?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


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