From pycyn@aol.com Sun Nov 04 05:58:58 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 4 Nov 2001 13:58:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 60708 invoked from network); 4 Nov 2001 13:58:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Nov 2001 13:58:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m09.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.164) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Nov 2001 13:58:57 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id r.c4.1d324a8e (18254) for ; Sun, 4 Nov 2001 08:58:51 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 08:58:50 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] lo with discourse-scope? To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_c4.1d324a8e.2916a39a_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_c4.1d324a8e.2916a39a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/3/2001 9:38:37 PM Central Standard Time, a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes: > . I call it the Goatleg > Rule. "At least 1" is "su'o pa". "Pa" on its own is "exactly 1, and no > Why Goatleg rule? <> You have a point with the focus of {bi'u}. Then the right way would be {lo > bi'u nanmu}, and to be specific {lo bi'u pa nanmu}. Then again, marking > the whole sentence as new info would have about the same effect, so > there you end up with {bi'u pa nanmu}.> OK but for {lo bi'u pa nanmu}: that says that the whole class of men has exactly one member (internal quantifier), you want {pa lo nanmu} with a {bi'u} in there somewhere. --part1_c4.1d324a8e.2916a39a_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/3/2001 9:38:37 PM Central Standard Time, a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:


. I call it the Goatleg
Rule. "At least 1" is "su'o pa". "Pa" on its own is "exactly 1, and no more".


Why Goatleg rule?

<> You have a point with the focus of {bi'u}. Then the right way would be {lo
> bi'u nanmu}, and to be specific {lo bi'u pa nanmu}. Then again, marking
> the whole sentence as new info would have about the same effect, so
> there you end up with {bi'u pa nanmu}.>

OK but for {lo bi'u pa nanmu}: that says that the whole class of men has exactly one member (internal quantifier), you want {pa lo nanmu} with a {bi'u} in there somewhere.
--part1_c4.1d324a8e.2916a39a_boundary--