No, just bad typing. I am sure that is not your only question about this discussion; I sure have many.
From: Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, October 6, 2011 8:24:59 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable
--
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:23 PM, John E. Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
[1] Sincei have doubts about what {zo'e} means, I'm not sure what {mii na klama zo'e} means, but I suppose it must be either "I do not go there", where "there" is some place obvious from context (the value of the Skolem function for the argument mi) or "I don't go anywhere", if it's a particular quantified variable, certainly not you second choice.With my usual habit of injecting mibzdi nu xajmi into long abstruse threads, I will just ask the following question about your first sentence: zo sincei zo'u se mupli fu'e xu la lyrens.oLIvieis .a la'acu'i ke la melPOmenis .a la talaiys fu'o--gejyspa
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.
--
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.