[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Jorge Llambias wrote:
>
> la xod cusku di'e
>
> >But it's true that la djan cu darxi su'o lo ro nanmu, so what mistake am I
> >making?
>
> la djan cu darxi lo nanmu ze'a lo jetfu
>
> CLL reading:
>
> su'o da poi nanmu zo'u (la djan cu darxi da ze'a lo jetfu)
> There is at least one man x such that: (John hits x all week).
>
> xod's reading:
>
> (su'o da poi nanmu zo'u la djan cu darxi da) ze'a lo jeftu
> (There is at least one man that John hits) that happens all week.
>
> Your reading is what I want to say. I don't want to say that any
> single man was hit all week, John may have hit a different man each
> day, for example. But the CLL reading with {lo} says that at
> least one of the men was hit all week. You ignore the scope of
> {lo} in almost all your Lojban writing, so in effect you use {lo}
> the way I use {lo'e}.
Very interesting. What happens if we use lei nanmu?
--
Henry McCullers, an affable Plano, TX-area anti-Semite, praised the
Jewish people Monday for doing "a bang-up job" running the media.
"This has been such a great year for movies, and the new crop of fall
TV shows looks to be one of the best in years," McCullers said.
"And the cable news channels are doing a terrific job, too. Admittedly,
they're not reporting on the Jewish stranglehold on world finance,
but, hey, that's understandable."