WikiDiscuss

pc:
> {lo broda cu brode} is a convenient way of saying that
> Broda intersects Brode, but Brode is preumably not in that intersection, so
> its existence is not relevant; only the existence of brodas counts.

I thought {lo broda cu brode}, in species talk, meant that Broda
overlaps Brode, not necessarily intersects.

> You
> cannot validly quantify from {lo broda cu brode} to either {su'o brode cu
> brode} or even {su'o da cu brode} (though, of course, these are generally
> true)

I agree with the first part (su'o brode). I'm not sure what you mean by
"validly quantify". Is it a problem to quantify over species?

mi nitcu lo tanxe e lo dakli -> mi nitcu re da

> I knew you wouldn't like this, but negations don't validly go past bare
> {lo broda} in either direction (though generally do, to be sure): from out to
> in because lo broda may have no specimens (ther are no brodas), from in to
> out because lo broda may have specimens in both Brode and Naku Brode.

I don't understand why you bring specimens in, since {lo broda naku brode}
should not be about specimens of lo broda or lo brode.

The way I see it:

lo prenu cu me lo klama
People are goers.

That says that lo prenu overlaps lo klama. In simple cases like
this one it can be simplified to {lo prenu cu klama}, but this
move is not always availableble (for example from {me lo mi broda}),
and the reverse move is not always possible: {lo broda cu brode
lo brodi} could be {lo broda cu me lo brode be lo brodi} or
{lo brodi cu me lo se brode be lo broda}.

For pervasions we can use {klesi}:

lo ractu cu klesi lo danlu
Rabbits are a kind of animal.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail