RE: [lojban] 'LAhe-da' (was RE: Tidying notes on {goi}

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la and cusku di'e

> Yes, it's the lesser of two evils, but why are you proposing
> either of two evils? Why must the second quantification be taken
> as restricted?

I don't know, it's not my argument. All I want is that it not be
restricted to some nebulous, ill-defined "selected" set.

> {da poi} can be useful for things like {ro da poi mi djuno tu'o
> du'u do citka ke'a}, which won't paraphrase with {lo} and which
> using a poi-less da would require {ga nai}, which is probably a
> little too mabla logji for some tastes.

Yes, I agree.

> Anyway, if {su'o da} means {su'o da poi co'e}, how does one
> express unrestricted {su'o da} (= E x)?

{su'o da poi du}. We can even sidestep {da} in order to use
names as bound variables: {su'o du goi la ab su'o du goi la ac}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes





_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp