Wiki page How to use xorlo changed
<rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 06:59:31AM -0800, John
> E Clifford wrote:
> >
> > --- Robin Lee Powell
> > <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 04:03:32PM +0100,
> > > Philip Newton wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 12:38:17 -0800,
> > > webmaster@lojban.org
> > > > <webmaster@lojban.org> wrote:
> > > > > Something that needs to be noted in
> > > general: we, the BPFK, made
> > > > > a consensus decision that we do
> not
> > > make rulings on
> > > > > ontological or metaphysical issues;
> that
> > > is, we will not tell
> > > > > you whether phrase X has meaning or
> > > validity.
> > > > ...
> > > > > * lo with an outer quantifier, which is
> > > exactly the same thing
> > > > > as just sticking a number before an
> item
> > > (i.e. "mu lo bakni" ==
> > > > > "mu bakni" == "five cows), works pretty
> > > much as before: "five
> > > > > things that really are cows".
> > > >
> > > > Was the "really are" intended?
> > > >
> > > > >From what I understand, "lo" is no
> longer
> > > makes a statement that
> > > > >a {lo
> > > > broda} "really is" a broda (or "really
> does"
> > > broda)... so wouldn't
> > > > {mu lo bakni} be closer to "five things
> that
> > > are cows", without
> > > > the "really"?
> > >
> > > You're conflating {mu lo bakni} with {lo
> > > bakni}. The former has an
> > > outer quantifier, the latter does not. The
> > > meanings are not the
> > > same. It is assumed that you wouldn't talk
> > > about a number of cows
> > > unless you actually wished to talk about
> cows.
> >
> > But you might want to talk about a number (5
> in
> > this case) of things that are related to cows
> > somehow, i.e., to specify the number of lo
> bakni
> > of current interest.
>
> That's {lo mu bakni}.
Isn't that some group of groups of five things
related to cows?
How do you say "five of the things just referred
to as {lo bakni}"?