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

From: "And Rosta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 02:54:08 +0100

Jorge:
> >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}. 

Is the idea that everything is an argument of some {du} predicate,
and hence that the restriction applies vacuously?

> 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}.

You are egregiously, exhaustingly quickwitted.

More generally, {ro du}, {lo du}, {le du}, etc. can be used
to introduce sumti without saying anything about them. {le du}
in particular is worth noticing, as an alternative to nonanaphoric
ko'a.

--And.