From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Fri Sep 20 17:45:45 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 21 Sep 2002 00:45:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 7917 invoked from network); 21 Sep 2002 00:45:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 21 Sep 2002 00:45:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailbox-13.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.113) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Sep 2002 00:45:44 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-68-58.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.68.58]) by mailbox-13.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with SMTP id A68593E1DE for ; Sat, 21 Sep 2002 02:45:42 +0200 (DST) To: Subject: RE: [lojban] lo'e, le'e, tu'o Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 01:47:22 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Jorge: > 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}. Since le'e refers to a single individual, it doesn't matter what the outer quantifier is. {le'e} differs from plain {le} both in signalling that the corresponding {le'i} is being conceptualized as a singleton set, and in that the outer quantifier is ro. > >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}. I agree, yes. {le'e ci gerku cu pa mei} makes sense, while {le'e ci gerku cu ci mei} does not. --And.