Subject: [lojban] Re: importing ro

From: Jordan DeLong <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 10:45:25 -0600

On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 12:18:43PM +0200, Adam Raizen wrote:
> de'i li 2002-11-07 ti'u li 16:34:00 la'o zoi. Robin Lee Powell .zoi cuskudi'e
> >Since ro is in PA, this obviously applies. I don't see that there's anything
> >to argue about.
> 
> Close, but this doesn't necessarily imply that 'PA broda' is equivalent to
> 'PA lo broda'. As I noted on jboske, ch. 8 sec. 6 says "so-called indefinite 
> sumti like ``re karce'' [..] [mean] almost the same as ``re lo karce''". I'm 
> not sure whether "almost the same" was just caution John's part, in case they 
> turn out to be different, or whether he was maybe referring to some esoteric 
> difference, such as the fact that 're karce' can only have a relative clause 
> after the 'ku', whereas 're lo karce' can have it both before and after, or 
> whether there was really supposed to be some small difference.

"By a quirk of Lojban syntax, it is possible to omit the descriptor
``lo'', but never any other descriptor.... is equivalent in meaning..."

Chap6, section 8 says it straight out, with examples. I didn't
know chap8 section 6 also reinforced the issue ;) A good point
about the ku being a difference though.

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