From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sun Apr 22 10:35:50 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 22 Apr 2001 17:35:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 8281 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2001 17:35:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Apr 2001 17:35:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.155) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Apr 2001 17:35:48 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 22 Apr 2001 10:35:48 -0700 Received: from 200.41.210.27 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 22 Apr 2001 17:35:48 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.210.27] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Three more issues Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 17:35:48 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Apr 2001 17:35:48.0834 (UTC) FILETIME=[AB50F420:01C0CB52] From: "Jorge Llambias" la aulun cusku di'e >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) You're right, translating inner {ro} as "each" does not work well, but the "inner quantifier" is not a quantifier, it is the cardinality of the set. {ro} doesn't add anything really, the inner quantifier is always the total number, you use {ro} when you don't want to be more specific. Another use of {ro} that does not translate well as "each" is for ordinals: romoi, rore'u, romai where it means "last". In any case, {ro broda}, {ro lo broda} or {ro da poi broda} always means "each broda". co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.