RE: [lojban] RE:not only

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>]

Xorxes:
> la pycyn cusku di'e
> 
> >ro lo nelci be leva stizu cu du le mlatu
> 
> Why the change in word order? Isn't that the same as
> {le mlatu cu du ro lo nelci be le va stizu}?
> 
> Avoiding {du} is always good Lojban practice, though.
> 
> >{me le mlatu} gets a bit fuzzy, though both might be true if there were
> >several cats and they all liked the chair,
> 
> No! If there were more than one cat, at least {du} would not
> be true! Each of the cats would not be = each of the likers.
> Each cat would only equal one of the likers.
> 
> "Only the cats like that chair" would have to be
> {ro nelci be le va stizu cu me le mlatu} or
> {ro nelci be le va sticu cu du su'o le mlatu}.

The problem with the latter is that it doesn't entail that each of
the cats like the chair. The problem with the former is that if
{me le mlatu} means "is each of the cats", then it's false, because
each liker is one of the cats, not each of cats, while if {me le
mlatu} means "for each x, x is one of the cats: is x", it's still
false, for similar reasons, and so would be {me lei mlatu}.

I think you've pointed this sort of thing out before.

OTOH, I'm with pc in disliking logical meanings expressed woollily
by UI.

So here's my suggestion:

  lo'i nelci be le va stizu cu me le'i mlatu

or

  lo'i nelci be le va stizu du le'i mlatu

--And.