From nessus@free.fr Thu Sep 19 09:01:09 2002
Return-Path: <nessus@free.fr>
X-Sender: nessus@free.fr
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 19 Sep 2002 16:01:09 -0000
Received: (qmail 32886 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2002 16:01:09 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218)
  by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 Sep 2002 16:01:09 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mel-rto3.wanadoo.fr) (193.252.19.233)
  by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Sep 2002 16:01:08 -0000
Received: from mel-rta8.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.79) by mel-rto3.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007)
  id 3D760D7C008D88DB for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 18:01:07 +0200
Received: from ftiq2awxk6 (193.248.238.30) by mel-rta8.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007)
  id 3D8011E30044B4BC for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 18:01:07 +0200
Message-ID: <00cb01c25ff7$7eba61e0$1eeef8c1@ftiq2awxk6>
To: "lojban" <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
References: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMIEOCGIAA.a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [lojban] tu'o usage
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 18:12:48 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
From: "Lionel Vidal" <nessus@free.fr>
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=47678341
X-Yahoo-Profile: cmacinf

And:
> > err, but then I can use {pa broda} which the book says is syntactically
> > the same as {lo pa broda},
>
> This is incorrect. {pa broda} = {pa lo su'o broda}.

Sorry I made a mistake, but I also disagree.
{pa broda} is actually the same as {pa lo ro broda} which can be simplified
in {pa lo broda}. Note that {pa broda} is nonetheless still the same in
our case than {tu'o broda}.

> > Why not indicate your reader clearly that exactly one thing satisfy
> > the description if it is indeed the case? This will relieve the reader
to
> > draw that eventually needed conclusion from the use of {tu'a}.
>
> You mean {tu'o}? The reasons are those I gave in the message you are
> replying to.

I indeed meant {tu'o} sorry. IMO Your reasons put a burden on your reader
without any obvious advantage.

> There is a difference between claiming something and implying something.
> This shows up, for example, if the whole sentence is negated.

Of course, but that is not the point. The point is that to understand fully
the sumti I will need the result of the implication. Why then introduce a
new quantifier when the same effect, that is a correct interpretation of
the referent by your reader, could be obtain with {pa}?

mu'omi'e lioNEL