Subject: Re: [lojban] tu'o usage

From: "Lionel Vidal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 18:12:48 +0200

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