RE: [lojban] a construal of lo'e & le'e

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

Rob:
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2001 at 12:27:53PM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:
> > {reda kanla ro remna} is definitely false, even if there were
> > not blind people - it means that everyone shares two eyes!
>
> Very good point - however, I think this is not the fault of {ro}, but of
> {da}.
>
> The first version could just as easily have been said with {rezu'i kanla
> lo'e remna}. Similarly, if you wanted to forget the existence of blind
> people, you should say {rezu'i kanla ro remna}.
>
> I think the misuse of {da} to mean "something", without considering the
> logical implications, is much more dangerous than using the wrong
> article. I'd say about half the time someone says {da} they really mean
> {zu'i}.

I don't remember the logic of zu'i ever having been explored; which category is
zu'i typical relative to? The selbri, regardless of the sumti? Or to the
whole local bridi? Or to the whole sentence? Or to the whole local bridi
following the zu'i, or what? And what do quantifications of zu'i mean?

At any rate, I'd like to see some examples with bogus da, because I'm not aware
of any. "da" does mean nonspecific something/someone.

--And.