From xod@sixgirls.org Thu Aug 02 06:38:44 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 2 Aug 2001 13:38:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 42241 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2001 13:38:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Aug 2001 13:38:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13) by mta2 with SMTP; 2 Aug 2001 13:38:42 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f72DcgC27240 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 09:38:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 09:38:41 -0400 (EDT) To: Subject: RE: [lojban] vliju'a In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, And Rosta wrote: > Xod: > > On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, And Rosta wrote: > > > > > tu'o ka ce'u djuno ku ka ce'u vlipa > > > > .oi ki'u ma cusku zo tu'o .i na mapti > > It was a recent excellent suggestion of Jorge's in > response to my complaint about having to use a quantifier > even to quantify over noncontingently singleton categories > (i.e. categories that are singletons in all worlds). Jorge > suggested using {tu'o} as a vacuous quantifier. Is this different from le pa broda? > This had been bugging me for years, so I seized on Jorge's > suggestion avidly. > > Anyway, you could happily rephrase my version as > {ro ka ce'u djuno ku ka ce'u vlipa}, or {lo'e ka ce'u > djuno ku ka ce'u vlipa} [that is not a llambian lo'e]. > > > .i ji'a ka'u zo ce'u na sarcu fi le > > du'u le 1mei tergismu cu stuzi zo ce'u > > Probably, but neither djuno nor vlipa is monadic (1mei > tergismu). Or do I misunderstand your point? Doh! I meant 1moi, not 1mei! ----- We do not like And if a cat those Rs and Ds, needed a hat? Who can't resist Free enterprise more subsidies. is there for that!