From lojban-out@lojban.org Thu Sep 19 08:24:36 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 19 Sep 2002 15:24:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 67471 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2002 15:24:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 Sep 2002 15:24:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Sep 2002 15:24:35 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17s3C9-0003gc-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 08:26:21 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17s3BF-0003fn-00; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 08:25:25 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 19 Sep 2002 08:25:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17s3BB-0003fe-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 08:25:22 -0700 Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g8JFTbwD018475 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 10:29:37 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com) Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g8JFTbmq018474 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 10:29:37 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 10:29:37 -0500 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: Re: [lojban] tu'o usage Message-ID: <20020919152936.GA18346@allusion.net> References: <003001c25fec$07856b20$3f2af8c1@ftiq2awxk6> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="T4sUOijqQbZv57TR" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-archive-position: 1359 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Jordan DeLong From: Jordan DeLong Reply-To: fracture@allusion.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out --T4sUOijqQbZv57TR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 03:57:11PM +0100, And Rosta wrote: > Lionel: > > And: > > > #What is then the semantic of {tu'o broda}? If it is used when there = is > > > #exactly one thing satisfying the description, why not be explicit > > > #with {lo pa broda}? > > > Reasons: > > > 1. A single-member category is logically simpler than a many-member > > > category. It is helpful to users to mark this absence of complexity > > > (e.g. it says "Don't worry about quantifier scope"), but it is > > > counterintuitive to have to add extra coomplexity, in the form of an > > > extra word {pa} , in order to signal an absence of complexity! > >=20 > > err, but then I can use {pa broda} which the book says is syntacticall= y > > the same as {lo pa broda},=20 >=20 > This is incorrect. {pa broda} =3D {pa lo su'o broda}. ju'oru'e, actualy {pa broda} =3D {pa lo ro broda}. Or under chapter 16, {pa broda} =3D {pa da poi ke'a broda ku'o} --=20 Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u sei la mark. tuen. cusku --T4sUOijqQbZv57TR Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE9ie1gDrrilS51AZ8RAidhAKCkcprPuUWPqJsHXFU6n0k6aU8qIgCgw/oh W3GxXuBcW1tUYFNPB4bTCUU= =f+wt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --T4sUOijqQbZv57TR--