From xod@sixgirls.org Thu Sep 06 19:54:07 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 7 Sep 2001 02:54:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 55717 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2001 02:54:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Sep 2001 02:54:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13) by mta2 with SMTP; 7 Sep 2001 02:54:00 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.6/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f872rxY17598 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 22:53:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 22:53:53 -0400 (EDT) To: Subject: tu'o again (was: the set of answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, And Rosta wrote: > pc: > > > I have not read it carefully but did not find what I understood of it on skim > > either plausible or even intelligible within the context of standard > > Lojban. > > But then, it is 1) unlikely that anyhting that gets labelled as "null > > operand/non-specific/elliptical number" is going to be intelligible or > > plausible and 2) clear that {tu'o} should have some use or other, vaguel as a > > quantifier. I just don't understand what And's version is nor how it is > > justified. > > See above. I'm not sure which messages you have or haven't read, but > there was agreement that {tu'o} couldn't sensically mean both "null operand" > and "non-specific/elliptical number", and John opined that it should mean > only "null operand". I agree with him. What does "null operand" mean? Does it mean a number-substitute for situations where no number can fit? I can't think of any such example, though. Even with the concept of Universe, of which there is by definition only one, it is modernly considered that there may be a multitude of them. ----- "We should destroy the Muslims' homes while leaving the Christians' homes alone." -- Rehavam Zeevi, Israeli Tourism Minister