Subject: tu'o again (was: the set of answers

From: Invent Yourself <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 22:53:53 -0400 (EDT)

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