Re: [lojban] "three times as big"

[Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com>]

But lo paki'o smacu is no more problematic than a lo pavyseljirna, is it?  Isn't that one of the points of xorlo?  Non-existence doesn't bother "lo".  These are 1000 theoretical mice.

       --gejyspa

On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Felipe Gonçalves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com> wrote:

Distributivity is not a problem in the original question. Distributivity there (with {ro}) is good.

On 17 February 2014 13:47, Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:

  How about "lo marce cu selca'u [pa'a/tai/lo canlu be] paki'o smacu"?

The problem with distributivity here is simply fixed with a {lo} before {pa ki'o}, but then we would be introducing a thousand rats in the discourse, whereas, in principle, there could be only one.

mu'o
mi'e .asiz.

--
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.