From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Tue Oct 30 06:12:58 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 30 Oct 2001 14:12:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 52342 invoked from network); 30 Oct 2001 14:12:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by 10.1.1.224 with QMQP; 30 Oct 2001 14:12:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta3 with SMTP; 30 Oct 2001 14:12:55 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Tue, 30 Oct 2001 13:49:38 +0000 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:24:10 +0000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:23:32 +0000 To: lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] a construal of lo'e & le'e Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin >>> Jorge Llambias 10/29/01 05:52pm >>> #la and cusku di'e #>Eh? What am I missing? -- "pa djacu cu du lo djacu" seems wholly true. # #It's false! It is not the case that one _and only one_ water #is equal to at least some water, because every water (and there #are more than one), is some water. In fact {ro broda cu du #lo broda} for any broda.=20 Oops! You're dead right. "pa brodu cu du lo broda" is true only iff "pa da broda" is true. I always get caught out by the goatleg rule. My problem is that my gut=20 instinct (no doubt influenced by Livagian...) is always to construe "re da" as "there is a pair, each member of which...". IOW, I just don't th= ink=20 of numbers as quantifiers. -- There you go: a Sapir-Whorf effect in action! --And #But I don't think this is what John's objection was about. # #I am not commenting on the lo'e/le'e construal because I agree #with it completely. # #mu'o mi'e xorxes