Re: status of lo/dapoi, here are some messages from the old thread

[Goran Topic <topic@math.hr>]

> "At least one elf is humanoid" is true if by elf you mean the character
> of fiction elf, and you allow the predicate "...is humanoid" to apply to
> characters of fiction. (It obviously doesn't apply to numbers,
> "3 is humanoid" is nonsense, but it may apply to other abstract
> objects.)

.i lu lici cu remna simsa li'u bebna nagi'eku'i jai jitfa

> The sentence can also be true, of course, within a work of fiction.
>
> It can't be the case that:
>
>         lo pavyseljirna cu pavyselcirna
>         At least one unicorn is a unicorn.
>
> is true and at the same time:
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>         no da cu pavyselcirna
>         There is nothing that is a unicorn.
>
> To me, these two are contradictory. Therefore, if {lo pavyseljirna
> cu pavyselcirna} is true, then {da poi pavyselcirna cu pavyseljirna}
> is also true.

.i kakne lenu le re jufra cu jetnu kei tu'a lo smuni vanbi drata .i su'a
ledu'u lu lo pavyseljirna cu pavyseljirna li'u jetnu cu natfe ledu'u lu
lo noda cu pavyseljirna li'u ba'e va'opo'o le kampu munje

> And what is the difference? Is {lo pavyselcirna cu pavyseljirna} true?
> Is {noda pavyseljirna} true?

.ije pe'i

.i mu'a vu lo selxa'u bemi noda pavyseljirna
.iku'i vu le ranmi ko'orgu'e na go'i

> The problem is not with {lo} or {da poi}, the problem is how
> you define the selbri {pavyseljirna}.

.i .ienai .i na nabmi fatu'a lo selbri velski
.i sarcu faleku'i nu djuno lodu'u selsku va'omakau

> Jorge

co'o mi'e. goran.

--
Learn languages! The more langs you know, the more incomprehensible you can get
e'udoCILreleiBANgu.izo'ozo'onairoBANguteDJUnobedocubanRI'a.ailekadonaka'eSELjmi