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

[John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>]

Well, we all seem to be on different pages here.  As I have said, let's get {lo} 
straightened out before we start to mess with PA and the rest of LO.




----- Original Message ----
From: Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, October 21, 2011 10:04:29 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified  plural 
variable

On Friday 21 October 2011 10:56:02 Martin Bays wrote:
> {pa pi no lo plise} would have to mean "all the apples" (together).
>
> So integers and reals act differently as quantifiers, even when they're
> equal as numbers. It's only quite ugly.

I say that "pa lo plise", "papino lo plise", and "piro lo plise" all mean the 
same, "one apple", but with different emphasis (the last is better translated 
as "an entire apple"). I was answering what would happen if And's 
interpretation were correct.

Pierre

-- 
When a barnacle settles down, its brain disintegrates.
Já não percebe nada, já não percebe nada.

-- 
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.