Subject: RE: [lojban] tu'o (was: ce'u (was: vliju'a

From: Invent Yourself <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 21:09:54 -0400 (EDT)

On Sun, 5 Aug 2001, And Rosta wrote:

> 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.

Well, the cmavo list I read says, about tu'o:

digit/number: null operand (used in unary operations); a
non-specific/elliptical number

It doesn't sound like what you want.

-----
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!