Subject: Re: [lojban] tu'o usage

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 15:52:48 EDT

In a message dated 9/19/2002 9:39:55 AM Central Daylight Time, [email-masked] 
writes:

<<
> err, but then I can use {pa broda} which the book says is syntactically
> the same as {lo pa broda}, and get only one marker
>>
The book had better say {pa broda} is the same as {pa lo broda}, NOT {lo pa 
broda}.

<<
I agree that in this case, all these amount to the same thing, but:
Yes, there are often practical reasons for using one rather than the other 
(never for {tu'o} so far as I can tell). I was just talking about the truth 
conditions.

&:
<<
There is a difference between claiming something and implying something.
This shows up, for example, if the whole sentence is negated. 
Does this mean that {tu'o broda cu brode} and {tu'o broda na brode} both 
imply that there is only one broda, while {pa broda cu brode} does and {pa 
broda na brode} does not. That, if true, would be a reason for using {tu'o}. 
I can't think of any reason to think it is true in Lojban (but then, I have 
no idea what {tu'o} means in Lojban).