.coi rodo
We've had a long discussion on this on IRC, but in the end I got the
impression we were all more or less confused:
1.)
Does {lo nu lo cevni cu zbasu lo munji kei fasnu} assert {lo cevni cu zbasu lo
munji} to be true?
Or does the abstraction loose precision (in whatever way)?.
(We had the point that {lo nu lo cevni cu zbasu lo munji kei} could also refer
to the big-bang due to it's abstract nature (while {lo cevni cu zbasu lo
munji} can't due to it's less abstract nature); does the abstraction really
loose precision?)
2.)
Which of the following is asserted by {.i broda ba lo nu brode}?
A.) {.i broda}
B.) {.i brode}
C.) {.i lo nu broda cu balvi lo nu brode} [Just the order! Without
implications of A and B!]
We had the example of: {.i mi citka lo plise ba lo nu mi citka lo badna}
Where the question was, if {.i mi citka lo badna} was implicitly stated, since
the whole bridi wouldn't make sense if it wasn't.
(i.e. It wouldn't make sense to state "I eat one or more apples after my
eating one or more banana(s)", if "my eating one or more banana(s)" never
occurred and never will)
ki'e mi'e nam
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.