[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la lojbab cusku di'e
>I think your proposal about le/lo goes in the right direction, >though you still talk of default quantifiers while the best >assignment is that they should have no quantifier: they should >be singular terms. That would reintroduce the concept of number, which Loglan/Lojban attempted to remove.
Singular terms can refer to groups. The problems of scopes are mostly caused by quantifiers.
>Does anybody use {du'u} that way? I think we use {du'u} for
>any relationship, realized or not.
I had a different impression, that lo [nu broda] and lo [du'u broda] was
as much a claim of the reality/existence of the description as lo [tanxe]
and lo [unicorn] in the ongoing discussions.
{lo du'u} is something that really is a proposition. The recent
discussion about {du'u} was to what extent is acceptable the
polysemy implied in having places that could take buth du'u and
nu as arguments.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963