Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable

[Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com>]

What's wrong with that?  The rose is a red thing.  The red thing is a rose.  I don't see what the problem is

On Oct 16, 2011 6:23 PM, "Martin Bays" <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:

* Saturday, 2011-10-15 at 19:22 -0400 - Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>:

> So am I taking "{lo} -> {zo'e noi}" too literally?

Actually, what do you make of this argument for not taking it too
literally:

{lo rozgu cu xunre}
   == {zo'e noi rozgu cu xunre}
   == {zo'e rozgu gi'e xunre}
   == {zo'e xunre gi'e rozgu}
   == {zo'e noi xunre cu rozgu}
   == {lo xunre cu rozgu}

Martin

-- 
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.