Subject: RE: [lojban] 'LAhe-da' (was RE: Tidying notes on {goi}

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 23:40:01

la and cusku di'e

>Yes, it's the lesser of two evils, but why are you proposing
>either of two evils? Why must the second quantification be taken
>as restricted?

I don't know, it's not my argument. All I want is that it not be
restricted to some nebulous, ill-defined "selected" set.

>{da poi} can be useful for things like {ro da poi mi djuno tu'o
>du'u do citka ke'a}, which won't paraphrase with {lo} and which
>using a poi-less da would require {ga nai}, which is probably a
>little too mabla logji for some tastes.

Yes, I agree.

>Anyway, if {su'o da} means {su'o da poi co'e}, how does one
>express unrestricted {su'o da} (= E x)?

{su'o da poi du}. We can even sidestep {da} in order to use
names as bound variables: {su'o du goi la ab su'o du goi la ac}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp