From xod@sixgirls.org Sat Aug 04 18:09:56 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 5 Aug 2001 01:09:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 13234 invoked from network); 5 Aug 2001 01:09:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Aug 2001 01:09:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13) by mta3 with SMTP; 5 Aug 2001 01:09:55 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f7519tl29813 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 21:09:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 21:09:54 -0400 (EDT) To: Subject: RE: [lojban] tu'o (was: ce'u (was: vliju'a In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself 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!