Re: [lojban] tu'o usage

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

And:
> > err,  but then I can use {pa broda} which the book says is syntactically
> > the same as {lo pa broda},
>
> This is incorrect. {pa broda} = {pa lo su'o broda}.

Sorry I made a mistake,  but I also disagree.
{pa broda} is actually the same as {pa lo ro broda} which can be simplified
in {pa lo broda}.  Note that {pa broda} is nonetheless still the same in
our case than {tu'o broda}.

> > Why not indicate your reader clearly that exactly one thing satisfy
> > the description if it is indeed the case? This will relieve the reader
to
> > draw that eventually needed conclusion from the use of {tu'a}.
>
> You mean {tu'o}? The reasons are those I gave in the message you are
> replying to.

I indeed meant {tu'o} sorry. IMO Your reasons put a burden on your reader
without any obvious advantage.

> There is a difference between claiming something and implying something.
> This shows up, for example, if the whole sentence is negated.

Of course, but that is not the point. The point is that to understand fully
the sumti I will need the result of the implication.  Why then introduce a
new quantifier when the same effect, that is a correct interpretation of
the referent by your reader,  could be obtain with {pa}?

mu'omi'e lioNEL



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/GSaulB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/