Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban Re: mei (was Pro-Sumti) In-Reply-To F64iZrAEXCUOGqcaZIc

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 20:27:26 +0000

la pycyn cusku di'e

>We can't readily get that hidden quantifier to light, the easiest is {su'o 
>lo
>pisu'o loi broda} -- and this {lo} cannot be dropped.

Another way of doing that, using my preferred version
of {mei}, whould be: {[su'o] lo su'omei be loi broda}

>And a specific
>submass would be {le pisu'o loi broda} or (to be really safe) {le pa le
>pisu'o loi broda} (we can't just tuck the {pa} inside the first {le} either
>or we get a supermass).

And that would be {le su'omei be loi broda}, which in this
case can be explicitly singularized to {le paboi su'omei
be loi broda}, avoiding the double selection implied by the
double {le}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com