3. Bunches relate to predicates in a varie= ty of ways, for none of which does
Lojban have an explicit marker, though some can be infer= red from other factors
(quantifiers, modals -- though we are somewhat defective there as we= ll, or maybe
jus= t more pragmatic or rhetorical devices -- I'm not sure what generalization = or
stereotype is= ). I don't have a complete list and am unsure about the status of
some I do have, so = some discussion would be welcome.
Right, this is the part of your approach I'm unhappy with. I'm l= oath to
give up the simple version of plural semantics, = whereby a selbri is
interpreted in a given world just as= a relation on the set of bunches.

But as far as I can see, yo= u are the one who has given that up.
I certainly have not. I have nothing but bunches of = broda all the way
up= (or down, as the case may be). I am deliberately avoiding the use
of"set", since that ra= ises other problem. So far as I am concerned,
=
the domain of the functions can be just bun= ches (of bunches, if you
<= span>like).
<= br>
C= omplicating this with your "modes of predication" (conjunctive,
<= /blockquote>
disjunctive, collective, statistical...) seems to fit lojban ill,
precisely because lojban has no way to mark them.<= br>

So far as I can tell, this jumble= just comes with plural reference,
together with an attempt to realistically with how various = things we
say are re= lated to the things we talk about. I don't suppose the list
is complete yet, but that is = only a practical problem. As for not
fitting Lojban, Lojban was designed without plural r= eference (or
L-sets)= and so makes no allowance for them. What it does partly make<= br>
allowance for is using (C-)= sets to represent plurals. But just what
that involved was never spelled out too clearly = (and much of what was
originally spelled out was lost in xorlo), so we cannot merely take it
over for L-sets. = ;Restoring some of that, or devising new conventions,
can cover much of the difficulty and perh= aps all, depending on how
= wide our convention net spreads.
=
Ah, so it looks like I have been misunderstanding you. I understo= od you
as having the truth value of a predication (in a wor= ld) depend on three
things - the predicate, the bunches whi= ch are its arguments, and the
mode(s) of predication. Now I= 'm understanding you as saying that it
depends only on the = first two, with the mode(s) merely being a way of
describin= g how it is that the truth value is related to the truth values
<= span>of the various predications where the bunches are replaced by their
subbunches. Is that right?

<= /blockquote>I'm not sure what this means, but it should mean something like= "the truth value of a predication depends, inter alia, on the way the subb= unches of the bunch which is the argument relate to the predicate." D= oes the bunch have the property because all of it's subbunches do or = because of them do or because none of them other than the whole do, or is p= redicate applied to the bunch in some "statistical" way, and so on. C= learly, the students wear green ties in a way quite different from the way = they surround a building or come from several countries or live at home or = have above average intelligence or are civil.