From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Sat Aug 04 19:10:27 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 5 Aug 2001 02:10:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 82628 invoked from network); 5 Aug 2001 02:10:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 5 Aug 2001 02:10:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta01-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.41) by mta2 with SMTP; 5 Aug 2001 02:10:27 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.40.25]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010805021025.GIBW15984.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 03:10:25 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] tu'o (was: ce'u (was: vliju'a Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 03:09:33 +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 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. I know. The thing is, "null operand" and "non-specific/elliptical number" don't seem to have much to do with each other, and the former lends itself tolerably well to the function we're debating, while the latter is blatantly inappropriate. But I heed your objections. Maybe I could use lo'e instead, as I did in former times. --And.