Subject: [lojban] Re: tu'o du'u (was Re: xoi'a)

From: Jordan DeLong <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:55:05 -0500

On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 09:47:21AM -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
> In a message dated 10/2/2002 7:15:29 PM Central Daylight Time, 
> [email-masked] writes:
> <<
> > Also I think saying "lo nazbi be mi" is more or less wrong. If
> > you're talking about your nose, you must know it, so you really
> > should say "le nazbi be mi". Same thing as the du'u stuff. The
> > "a nose of mine" reading is much more like "lo nazbi" than "le
> > nazbi". The inner ro on "le" does *not* imply I have multiple
> > noses. But using "lo" insead of "le" would imply I'm not sure
> > which thing is my nose.
> >>
> Errh. Isn't the assumed inner quantifier on {le} {su'o} and the outer {ro}?

You're correct. I should've said the inner su'opa on ro doesn't
claim that there are neccesarily more (nazbi be mi) than this one.

-- 
Jordan DeLong - [email-masked]
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku