Subject: RE: [lojban] lo'e, le'e, tu'o

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 15:48:12 +0000

la and cusku di'e

> > >BTW, this automatically gives us a useful meaning for
> > >{le'e} -- it would mean {(ro) le pa}.
> >
> > Don't you mean {tu'o le tu'o}?
>
>Outer quantifier could just as well be tu'o, yes, as per my
>above remarks.

I think it must be {tu'o}, or you are left with plain {le}.

>The inner one, though, is the cardinality
>specifier, and I'm not sure what tu'o would mean as a cardinality
>specification.

On further thought, I agree that the inner cannot be {tu'o}.
But it need not be {pa}, either. The inner quantifier remains
the cardinality of the underlying set {le'i}, before the
collapse into one individual takes place, so in general for
{le} it could still be {su'o}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx