Re: [lojban] tu'o usage

["Lionel Vidal" <nessus@free.fr>]

>>lionel:
> > But to be consistent, this should also be true in when INNER actually
set
> > the cardinality of the underlying subset of broda, as in{lo ci broda cu
> > brode},
> > which I would read as {ge lo'i broda cu ci mei gi lo broda cu brode},
> > and has such is indeed affected by negation boundaries. Or do you
consider
> > than this cardinality is never really asserted, but belongs to {na'i}
> > domain,
> > i.e. be the same kind of presupposed implications, despite being
explicitly
> > stated?
> >pc:
> > I would claim that it is true in the case of {lo ci broda} as well
> > and thus that the expansion  you propose is not correct.  That is,
> > {lo ci broda na brode} doesn't come out as {ro lo na'e ci broda naku
> > brode}.  That is, yes, INNER is part of the {na'i} domain (I thought
> > I said that explicitly.  Sigh!)
>>and:
> You had said that explicitly, but I think Lionel, like me, was taking
> the opposing view.

Indeed, I take the opposing views. As xorxes pointed it out, the whole
issue seems to decide wether the INNER part is claimed or presupposed.
IMO it is naturally claimed (the ro case being special, see below):
I would find it very strange, to say the least, to consider something
explicitly stated as something presupposed.

xorxes
>So if the inner quantifier is claimed, the manipulation rules are
>not at all simple,

That is what I was trying to show with my negation of
{lo ci broda cu brode}.

>except when the inner is non-importing ro,
>which makes no claim or presupposition. Yet another argument
>in favour of non-importing ro.

IMO, for me it is now the main argument in its favour, as it solves my
negation moving problems in a satifactory way.

mu'omi'e lioNEL