Subject: tu'o (was: ce'u (was: vliju'a

From: Invent Yourself <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 17:11:45 -0400 (EDT)

On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, And Rosta wrote:

> > I don't see why tu'o would be any stronger than le/lo pa.
>
> Because tu'o is uninformative, it serves to indicate that the
> quantification is a redundant irrelevance. Or so the idea goes.

Why does tu'o mean 1 more than it means 0?

-----
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!