From: Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, August 13, 2011 6:41:53 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] xorlo and masses
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 2:29 AM, Martin Bays
<mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
* Friday, 2011-08-12 at 23:04 -0600 - Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com>:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Martin Bays <
mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > So in all cases, the referents of {lo/loi broda} are entities which
> > individually broda?
>
> No, just loi. lo is completely non specific.
Non specific means that {lo broda} is not specific as to whether the
referents are being referred to collectively or distributively. As J.
Cowan said, to specifically refer to them collectively, use {loi}, to
specifically refer to them distributively, use {PA lo} (where PA is any cmavo or cmavo cluster of selma'o PA) or {lu'a lo}.
{lo} is completely generic, and distributive or collective reference when using only {lo} must be determined via context. This is why in {lo tadni cu sruri le dinju gi'e krixa}, {lo tadni} are collectively {sruri le dinju}, but distributively {krixa}, because {lo tadni} does not specify whether those which {tadni} are distributive or collective.
all I'm claiming is that
{ro lo broda cu broda} is a tautology, where {ro lo broda} quantifies
distributively over the referents of {lo broda}. Is this controversial?
How could it be controversial?
Also, IIRC, if you are using an outer quantifier, you don't actually need lo. ({PA lo broda} = {PA broda})
--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.
.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )
--
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.