Re: Indirect questions

[JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>]

 cu'u la lojbab
 >Well I checked the refgram particularly because I thought that, in the
>recently mentioned discussion of 2 years ago fall, YOU had convinced
>Cowan
>that the quantification on lei should be the same as on loi (i.e. pisu'o).

No, it wasn't me. As I recall it, at some point both {lei} and {loi} had
piro
as default. I remember arguing that {loi} should have {pisu'o}, but when
both were changed to {pisu'o} I argued that {lei} should keep {piro}.
For some reason John wanted both to have the same quantifier.
The same thing happens with le'i/lo'i. They're both {piro} even though
{pisu'o} would make more sense for {lo'i} in my opinion. All this
discussion is in the archives anyway, if anyone is interested enough to
check it.

>Prior to that it WAS piro , and Cowan was talked out of this by ledo'o
>arguments on the nature of lei and masses.

Certainly not by my arguments. Or rather, I argued for the change
for loi, but he went on to change lei as well.

> The hostory of it being the other
>way is why you undoubtedly recall usage being piro.

Usage after the change is still {piro}.

>.oiro'e

a'o le mi ve ciksi cu sidju le do menli le nu surla

>mi'e lojbab


co'o mi'e xorxes