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

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> I agree that it isn't perfect terminology, because what's on the kind
> end in one situation might in other situations be on the mundane end,
> and vice-versa. Whether or not there are 'absolute mundanes' isn't
> really important - it's the mixing of the levels in a single {lo}-phrase
> that causes the problems.

That almost sounds like something I would say! I agree you shouldn't
mix levels in the same lo-phrase. Any resolution into lower levels you
may want to do has to come from something outside of the lo-phrase,
the lo-phrase will only provide the uppermost level for any given
situation.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
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.