Received: from mail-pz0-f61.google.com ([209.85.210.61]:48001)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCOTEtqyUDhDhk4X0BBoEFx54ww@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1R8Oru-0004c2-KO; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 21:02:14 -0700
Received: by pzk32 with SMTP id 32sf6039124pzk.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 21:02:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references
         :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:x-pgp-key
         :x-pgp-keyid:x-cunselcu'a-valsi:user-agent:x-original-sender
         :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list
         :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender
         :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe;
        bh=rnCYgQOUa290gisPAMH0ZnJHlMvl+4GeT/FZWsGfoR4=;
        b=uHuZmAUgeXNwVyHdje21M0wOktbGZ533wEPIrdQ9LMwdCLecbYCSb0JsVYe67/wegg
         h9pFSq7+ymYJ4+A8ydZixAYuZio+88MdwyxuUZK0uPD7HYUCdQBW18C/nwlXDDpCg8if
         Q1Tn/9fmb2YoYq5NoCj6NvGv2TEpsYIqs1OaQ=
Received: by 10.68.34.68 with SMTP id x4mr3117975pbi.9.1317095905924;
        Mon, 26 Sep 2011 20:58:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.68.120.168 with SMTP id ld8ls328069pbb.7.gmail; Mon, 26 Sep
 2011 20:58:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.33.71 with SMTP id p7mr26543216pbi.1.1317095905324;
        Mon, 26 Sep 2011 20:58:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.33.71 with SMTP id p7mr26543214pbi.1.1317095905312;
        Mon, 26 Sep 2011 20:58:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (mx.sdf.org. [192.94.73.19])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j4si28905925pbi.2.2011.09.26.20.58.25
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Mon, 26 Sep 2011 20:58:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of mbays@sdf.org designates 192.94.73.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=192.94.73.19;
Received: from gonzales.homelinux.org (root@sverige.freeshell.org [192.94.73.4])
	by sdf.lonestar.org (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p8R3wLXY000873
	for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 03:58:23 GMT
Received: from martin by gonzales.homelinux.org with local (Exim 4.75)
	(envelope-from <mbays@sdf.org>)
	id 1R8OoH-00038o-Q3
	for lojban@googlegroups.com; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 23:58:21 -0400
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 23:58:21 -0400
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable
Message-ID: <20110927035821.GN22625@gonzales>
References: <20110921000757.GR4310@gonzales>
 <1316618218.15694.YahooMailRC@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
 <20110922234555.GB24443@gonzales>
 <1316736086.52889.YahooMailRC@web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
 <20110924150246.GA4576@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2dNOSWyXBDzq3KSSqMsUx8f81vNtKugSCV0z_-VNCQFVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110925153046.GB4576@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2cQNh5p2FhTJnniK_Pb_KOMYrDvvpCSPrk97yTomAXq5A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110927012751.GK22625@gonzales>
 <1317090828.8941.YahooMailRC@web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="xdWF/UuCWMRSqXrg"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1317090828.8941.YahooMailRC@web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
X-PGP-Key: http://mbays.freeshell.org/pubkey.asc
X-PGP-KeyId: B5FB2CD6
X-cunselcu'a-valsi: mukti
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Original-Sender: mbays@sdf.org
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 best guess record for domain of mbays@sdf.org designates 192.94.73.19 as
 permitted sender) smtp.mail=mbays@sdf.org
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en_US>
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /


--xdWF/UuCWMRSqXrg
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Monday, 2011-09-26 at 19:33 -0700 - John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com=
>:

> While I think that it is possible to make both the Platonic (all types, n=
o=20
> individuals) and Buddhist  (all segments, no perduring individuals) model=
s work,=20
> they both seem to me needlessly complex as models for Lojban (or English)=
=20
> semantics.  Both languages assume perduring individuals and admit (if at =
all)=20
> types as syntheses of individuals and and segments as analyses.
>
> [(where segments are those]
> little (temporal)chunks of individuals that xorxes seems to think
> are needed somehow or that he thinks are analogous to manifestation in
> the Platonic model.  And he is right, of course, in that both of them
> are abstractions from individuals, which, so far, are all that have
> been shown to be needed.=20
> [)]
>
> Talk about these odd entities can be translated into talk about
> individuals without loss and apparently in several different ways.  So
> why muck up the ontology?  Now, of course, these remaoks assume that
> either one of you is actually proposing one of these odd, which I am
> not sure you are.  If you are, lay it out boldly and give some
> arguments for it.  So far, the most that I can for the Platonic is
> that Carlson uses types for some plurals -- but those types are just
> maximal bunches, as even he occasionally admits.  I haven't seen any
> uses for the Buddhist line.

I propose no kinds/types nor stages/segments, and would indeed prefer to
analyse kinds away. Currently I see no reason this can't be done - kinds
resolving to one of existential quantification, generic quantification,
or property abstraction. But I'm hazy on how the generic horn of that
trichotomy works, so I wouldn't go so far as to say I'm 'proposing'
anything.

--xdWF/UuCWMRSqXrg
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAk6BSd0ACgkQULC7OLX7LNaKyACgrsp9AjlraKRjyz8ANrEtrLf6
5RgAoKO7+B517OwX0yO7tH68dMiDts78
=thHh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--xdWF/UuCWMRSqXrg--