I'm still finding this confusing, probably partly from Lojban terminology. mi'o is apparently the union of mi and do, written {mi jo'e do}?, without comment about how they interact with properties. To say, {ro mi'o}then says that they interact distributively and completely and thus amount to {ro mi e ro do}, as noted. Of course, other quantifiers would not break down so easily {su'o mi'o} is surely {su'o mi a su'o do} but nothing else works (well, {no ... e...}). I don't get the point about {mio}, largely because I don't quite see what it is supposed to be (it isn't given anywhere and doesn't appear to be Lojban).
From: selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] "we" and masses. A bug in the CLL?
la latro'a cu cusku di'e
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 9:14 AM, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de
> <mailto:seladwa@gmx.de>> wrote:
>
> ro mi'o = mi .e do
>
> While I agree with this suggestion (as we already discussed on IRC), I
> disagree with this equation. Instead ro mi'o = ro mi .e ro do.
Good point. I made the same point with the "mio" translation, but just went with singular {mi} and {do} here. {ro mi .e ro do} is obviously better.
mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.