Re: needing books

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

JL>Or, (but lojbab disagrees):
JL>
JL>    mi nitcu lo cukta

I only disagree in that if And attaches significance to 'specific'
(which I failed to notice in my own response to him), then it should
be "le" rather than "lo" because "lo" is inherently non-specific
  Hmm. I'll amend that.  If we are not being pedantic, then "lo" may
possibly be specific because pragmatics will indicate that there are
unstated restrictions.


Hmm.  Do we have an attitudinal that says "pedantic - non-pedantic" %^)

lojbab