From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Fri Sep 20 17:45:45 2002
Return-Path: <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
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 <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Sat, 21 Sep 2002 02:45:42 +0200 (DST)
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [lojban] lo'e, le'e, tu'o
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 01:47:22 +0100
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMIEAKGJAA.a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
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: <F258FJ3sl3xbYiMCIqt00000766@hotmail.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
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.