Re: [lojban] Explicit non-restriction

[Daniel Brockman <dbrockman@gmail.com>]

> Is {do nelci ma} not already explicitly non-restrictive? This {ma}
> explicitly lacks restrictive elements.

I don't think so.  I think context determines how restricted {ma} is.

>> So maybe {.i do nelci ma poi me ro da}?  But that sounds weird.
>
> Wouldn't that actually be more restrictive, as the answer is expected not to
> be other than the same as {ro da} i.e. not to be {zo'e poi na'e me ro da}?

No, because everything is a referent of {ro da} (by definition).

> What if the answer is {no da}?

You can still answer {no da}.

>> Maybe {do nelci ma bi'u} is a good way!
>
> There is {e'inai} too.

Hmm, yes, that might work too.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.