WikiDiscuss

---

> {mi nitcu lo mikce} — obviously true (in the right circumstances)
> Here, I take every {mikce} in the world, assign it to {xy.} and for eac=
> h
> one asks if {mi nitcu xy.} is true. If and only if there is no {xy.} fo=
> r
> which {mi nitcu xy.} is false, then {mi nitcu lo mikce} is true. No
> problem here.

But what you are describing is {mi nitcu ro mikce}.

In {mi nitcu lo mikce} you don't examine any doctor. All you
need to know is what a doctor is. Then, knowing what a doctor
is, you ask yourself, is that what I need? If the answer is yes,
then {mi nitcu lo mikce} is true. You don't have to examine any
doctors. As xod says, all the doctors may be dead and you may
still need one.

> {lo prenu cu tarci} — obviously false
> We are then looping through every {prenu}. There are some (actually all=
> )
> instances in which {xy. tarci} is false, therefore {lo prenu cu tarci} =
> is
> false. No problem here.

Again you are describing the procedure to check {ro prenu cu tarci}.
For {lo prenu cu tarci} what you need to know is what a prenu is.
Knowing what a prenu is, do you think it is (at least sometimes)
a tarci? If not, then the sentence is false.

> {lo prenu cu sadjo} — obviously true.
> We are again looping through every {prenu}. There are some instances in
> which {xy. sadjo} is false, therefore {lo prenu cu sadjo} is false. Whi=
> ch
> is patently wrong, but fits with how I understand XS-lo.

Again, you are describing {ro prenu cu sadjo}, which as you conclude
is false.

To check {lo prenu cu sadjo} you start from your knowledge of
what a prenu is. Then you ask yourself, is it (at least sometimes)
a sadjo? If yes then {lo prenu cu (su'oroi) sadjo} is true.

{lo prenu roroi fe'eroroi sadjo} is obviously false. People can be
Saudis, but people are not always and everywhere Saudis.

> So. What is it that I'm missing here.

You seem to be confusing lo with ro.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/