Well, I am not too sure about the distinction between singular {ci} and plural, which plural reference was supposed to solve but managed to multiply. Still, there does seem to be a problem here. I thought that perhaps we had the set "For three men, I want them to run", "I want three men for to run" and "I want for three men to run'. But the second was still suspect, since it seemed to need another {tu'a} to come out right. Another possibility is that, since these levels are generated by places where a matrix is inserted, that the relevant level here is not such a case even though treated as the same in Lojban. That is, referring to an event or proposition is not a case of picking a salient object with the property of being an event or proposition, but a different sort of move, as it typically is in logic: not /x^p^x, but simply ^p^. This removes the opportunity for another quantifier, if I have got the pattern down. {ci da zo'u mi djica du'u (I would have thought nu, but my theology is happier with propositions anyhow) da co'e} vs {mi djica du'u ci da co'e} with no other places to put in quantifier. All very unLojbanic, of course, but we're well past that objection by now. Sent from my iPad -- 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. |