Subject: RE: [lojban] A defense of dead horse beating

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 08:51:37 PDT

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