From nessus@free.fr Thu Sep 19 09:01:09 2002 Return-Path: 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" References: 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" 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