Jorge Llambías, On 06/10/2014 23:10:
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:55 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com <mailto:and.rosta@gmail.com>> wrote:
So {lo broda cu brodu} is not equivalent to {zo'e ge broda gi brodu}?
I would say they are not equivalent because that it brodas is in one
case presupposed and in the other case asserted.
Okay. That answers my question. What's the rationale for your answer (i.e. for holding that the lo description is presupposed)?
I don't think there is any concentrated full coverage anywhere.
I have seen attempts to define {lo} periphrastically using {zo'e}. Since afaik Lojban has no words for marking presupposition, any periphrasis (without the requisite neologistic presupposition-markers) is doomed to fail.