From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Sat Aug 04 17:57:49 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 5 Aug 2001 00:57:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 72028 invoked from network); 5 Aug 2001 00:57:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 5 Aug 2001 00:57:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta02-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.42) by mta2 with SMTP; 5 Aug 2001 00:57:48 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.43.93]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010805005747.ZSSU29790.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 01:57:47 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] tu'o (was: ce'u (was: vliju'a Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 01:56:54 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" Xod: > 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? The idea is that tu'o is not a vague quantifier but a PA that logicosemantically doesn't function as a quantifier. I feel the need for such a thing, though I am not unshakably committed to defending tu'o for this purpose. --And.