Subject: lo simxu

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 13:51:53

There was a semi-consensus at some point that lo simxu
could be a set or a mass. The proposed distinction was
that {mi ce do ce ta simxu le ka ce'u ce'u tavla}

means:

mi do tavla
ije do mi tavla
ije mi ta tavla
ije ta mi tavla
ije do ta tavla
ije ta do tavla

whereas {mi joi do joi ta simxu le ka ce'u ce'u tavla}
is not so strictly exhaustive, more like {mi joi do joi ta
tavla mi joi do joi ta}.

The benign effect of this convention would be to kill the
use of sets with simxu, because we practically never want
the exhaustive combinatorics meaning. {le tavla simxu cu
klama le zarci} is meaningful to me, but it makes no sense
if {lo simxu} is construed as a set, because sets don't
go to stores.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp