From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sun Jul 09 08:51:37 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28508 invoked from network); 9 Jul 2000 15:51:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 9 Jul 2000 15:51:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.203) by mta1 with SMTP; 9 Jul 2000 15:51:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 37213 invoked by uid 0); 9 Jul 2000 15:51:37 -0000 Message-ID: <20000709155137.37212.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.42.153.98 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sun, 09 Jul 2000 08:51:37 PDT X-Originating-IP: [200.42.153.98] To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: RE: [lojban] A defense of dead horse beating Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 08:51:37 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed From: "Jorge Llambias" la and cusku di'e >Hold on, though. I can't think what use {da voi broda} would >be, but surely it's not the same as {su'o le broda}, because >the latter entails that there is a referent for {le broda}. So does the first one. {da voi broda} is "at least one of the things which I'm calling broda", and there has to be a referent. >And isn't {ro lo broda} merely the same as {lo broda}? No. {ro lo broda} is "each one of the things that are broda". {lo broda} is the same as {su'o lo broda}, "at least one of the things that are broda". >-- There >is no specificity, unlike in {ko'a poi broda}. You can't have >meant what you typed. I did mean it, but I knew it was going to be controversial. I don't really grasp what could be the difference between specific and non-specific universals. Once we have identified the full set (either "all of those that really are", in the case of {lo}, or "all of those that I have in mind", in the case of {le}) if I refer to each of the members, using {ro}, is there a difference in referring to each specifically or non-specifically? co'o mi'e xorxes ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com