From Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Sun Apr 22 04:51:12 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 22 Apr 2001 11:51:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 40218 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2001 11:51:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Apr 2001 11:51:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO c3.egroups.com) (10.1.10.50) by mta1 with SMTP; 22 Apr 2001 11:51:10 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Received: from [10.1.2.23] by c3.egroups.com with NNFMP; 22 Apr 2001 11:51:10 -0000 Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 11:51:08 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Three more issues Message-ID: <9bugjc+pbcb@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1155 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 193.149.49.79 From: "A.W.T." --- In lojban@y..., "Jorge Llambias" wrote: > > la aulun cusku di'e > > > {le so'o valsi cu valsi}. > >Am I wrong stating that this distinction (le/lei) doesn't really work? > >{le so'o valsi} means: *all* of the several discribed as words, not *each*, > >so it's plural too. > > {ro} means "each". "All" in logic also always means "each". > In ordinary language, "all" is sometimes used for the collective > meaning, but in Lojban {ro} always means "each". If that is true then the following seems to be tautological/nonsensical: {lo} -> {su'o lo ro} -> at least one of *each* (one) or {re} -> {re lo ro} -> two of *each* (one) whereas {lo} -> {su'o lo ro} -> at least one of *all* (ones) does make sense. > >(ro le su'o -> ro le so'o). Hence: {le > >so'o valsi cu ca'a valsi so'omei gi'enai - pa - valsi} > {gi'enai pa valsi} is not grammatical. You need a selbri > after gi'enai and {pa valsi} is a sumti. Maybe {me pa valsi}, > but {valsi} alone is better. Correct, {pa} wasn't meant to be part of the bridi, but just a hint. {me pa valsi} {pa zei valsi} or (which I'd prefer) {valsi pamei} or even {valpavmei} .aulun.