Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.17.22 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.17.22;
Message-ID: <52F65A5C.90605@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 17:25:00 +0100
From: selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Individuals and xorlo
References: <CAN2DD_E0QBcidfV+rp=N+rW1YeYtOanugo172BbgwFmswA2-SA@mail.gmail.com> <52F26B9E.2090001@gmx.de> <5e023b9a-515c-432b-a389-8f9af4766b51@googlegroups.com> <52F29ED8.1050607@gmx.de> <a337096c-d88e-4387-a3d7-9642195e72af@googlegroups.com> <CAO7tK2fqC3RQkHDE5unLx-z+5U4VU2nWempwEnzDAcpyB810pw@mail.gmail.com> <372dd8f1-1920-4afa-8d11-aa55696982a0@googlegroups.com> <CAO7tK2f+f5tebxR-eH5UAx8mkOJAaZnM3Es2syyOdcMHZpn0qw@mail.gmail.com> <03555bbd-cc44-426f-94ee-65d557f2d301@googlegroups.com> <CAO7tK2d1U9Z=ZJ6sPaP++huPE+zE_dCGqXsrJ80jk4c5M+Y_GQ@mail.gmail.com> <592497c0-5db5-420e-867f-8df1663eca27@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <592497c0-5db5-420e-867f-8df1663eca27@googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

la .guskant. cu cusku di'e
> Moreover, calling something in a domain of plural variable "one or more
> individuals" is misleading for me.
> The term for "something in a domain of plural variable" should be first
> given; after that "individual" is defined using it. The concept
> "individual" is only a special case of "something in a domain of plural
> variable" as defined above.

What would be another case of SDPV that is not an individual? I can't 
really make sense of your argument, because for me there are only 
individuals and nothing else (DPV or not).

> Something that is broda is not always "one or more individuals" defined
> above: when a universe of discourse is given, there is no need that {lo
> broda} in the universe of discourse is finally separated into individual
> pieces that are members of the universe of discourse.

Please give an example where that does not happen.

mi'e la selpa'i mu'o

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.