[lojban] Re: Un-definite quantifier.

[Jorge Llambías <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

On 6/13/05, opi_lauma <opi_lauma@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > You don't need the {lo} here.
> Where? In the last example or in all my examples? 

PA lo gerku = PA gerku

so:

pa lo gerku = pa gerku
re lo gerku = re gerku
su'o lo gerku = su'o gerku
so'i lo gerku = so'i gerku
ro lo gerku = ro gerku

> And why I do not
> need {lo}? It is not necessary or I change meaning if I put {lo}?

Just not necessary.

> Is {su'o lo gerku} not equivalent to {lo gerku}? 

No, for example:

   lo gerku cu xagrai pendo lo remna
   Dog is best friend of man.

   su'o lo gerku cu xagrai pendo su'o lo remna
   At least one dog is best friend of at least one human.

Those are not equivalent.

>I thought that if we
> have no quantifier before {lo} it means (by default) "undefinet number
> but not zero", or the same "some", or the same "at leas one", isn't?

No quantifier means that number is not relevant to your claim. 
Using {su'o} says that number is relevant: at least one does what 
you claim, and it is important to point out that at least one
does it.

mu'o mi'e xorxes