la .pycyn. cu cusku di'e
> But at least the last of these may
> include in the referent of 'lo broda' things which are not broda in any
> sense, but rather,
for example, broda bits. (There was broda all over my
> bumper after I plowed into a herd of brodas.)
Whether or not those things are considered things that {broda} depends
on the universe of discourse. There is no pre-defined set of things
which can and can't satisfy {broda} in all contexts.
>Of course, this possibility does also rely on there not being
> any absolute individuals, since me here extends below things which are
> brodas (individual brodas still have members, they just aren't brodas).
If the universe of discourse in question makes no distinction between an
alive broda and one that got squashed, then they both {broda} equally.
In another context, they may be considered distinct and then only one of
them will {broda}, and the other is something else.
None of this is strictly tied to {lo} or xorlo, but to the semantics of
universes of discourse.
mi'e la selpa'i mu'o
--
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/d/optout.