WikiDiscuss

A> Fib\ne, but I think that the discussion (current and past) demonstrates the need for at least {lo2} and {lo3} somehow. Suggestions?

B> This makes more sense than the present system — and fits in with {le} at least.

C> I don't quite understand this use of {da'i}, which seems to have sentential scope, not sumti. Poc\ssibly {claxu2} creates an opque context, i.e., is some sort of abstrct description. But that does not seem to fit with the definition.
wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote:
Re: BPFK Section: gadri
MEGO! I am lost trying to make sense of intensions, Mr. Rabbit, and the like.

A>I think {lo} should remain as it is, with these possible changes:
B>1. Currently {ze lo ze bidju} means "seven of the only seven beads that exist". This meaning of the use of the inner quantifier is rarely needed, so it should be dropped. If you want to say that there are only seven beads in the world, say {lo ro ze bidju}. {ze lo ze bidju} then means "all of a group of seven beads", not "seven groups of seven beads each", which requires {zemei}. {mu lo vo tadni} is nonsense.
C>2. With some predicates, {lo broda} has to refer to something which may not exist. For instance, {la katr,in. kartrait.djonz. me'andi skagau le degji jipno .imu'ibo claxu lo jgalu}. She's missing the left index nail; it wasn't removed from her, it never formed. So {lo zunle ke jarco degji jgalu be kykydy} has no referent, and yet she claxu it. Thus {claxu} implies that its x2 may be {da'i}; if you need to say that the thing lacked does in fact exist, say {da'inai}.