Re: A couple of questions

[Logical Language Group <lojbab>]

la .and. cusku di'e

> The lojbanic solution in such cases is usually to invent ways to
> express both meanings (& to make both expressions "Zipfean" - i.e.
> verbose in proportion to their infrequency). So I conclude that
> we need:
>   (1) all, not implying existence
>   (2) all, implying existence
>   (3) some-but-not-necessarily-all, not implying existence
>       [This is the ">0%" I've advocated.]
>   (4) some-but-not-necessarily-all, implying existence
> (1) is "ro" & (4) is "lo" & "da". It would be nice to have a convenient
> expression for (2) & (3).

I believe that by the current interpretations "lo" is #3.  #2 can be handled
by something like "rosu'o", "all of the at-least-one".

-- 
John Cowan		sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.