Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 02:53:31 -0800 (PST)
From: guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <348c23bf-6d9f-4a05-bfe7-69b141c03cb7@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <52F65A5C.90605@gmx.de>
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>
 <52F65A5C.90605@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Individuals and xorlo
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_2247_18121773.1391943211994"
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

------=_Part_2247_18121773.1391943211994
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Le dimanche 9 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 01:25:00 UTC+9, selpa'i a =C3=A9crit :
>
> la .guskant. cu cusku di'e=20
> > Moreover, calling something in a domain of plural variable "one or more=
=20
> > individuals" is misleading for me.=20
> > The term for "something in a domain of plural variable" should be first=
=20
> > given; after that "individual" is defined using it. The concept=20
> > "individual" is only a special case of "something in a domain of plural=
=20
> > variable" as defined above.=20
>
> What would be another case of SDPV that is not an individual? I can't=20
> really make sense of your argument, because for me there are only=20
> individuals and nothing else (DPV or not).=20
>
> > Something that is broda is not always "one or more individuals" defined=
=20
> > above: when a universe of discourse is given, there is no need that {lo=
=20
> > broda} in the universe of discourse is finally separated into individua=
l=20
> > pieces that are members of the universe of discourse.=20
>
> Please give an example where that does not happen.=20
>
>

Suppose a universe of discourse is given, where {lo linji} is in a domain=
=20
of plural variable.
In this universe of discourse, {lo linji xi no} can be separated into=20
shorter {lo linji xi pany}:

lo linji xi pano cu me lo linji xi no
i
lo linji xi papa cu me lo linji xi no
i
...

Repeat the separation also for {lo linji xi pany}.
After infinite times of separation, {lo linji} is finally separated into=20
{lo mokca} which is individual:

RO DA poi ke'a me lo mokca zo'u lo mokca me DA

but for any shorter {lo linji}:

naku lo linji me lo mokca

Therefore, any {lo linji} does not satisfy=20
RO DA poi ke'a me lo linji zo'u lo linji me DA

{lo linji} in this universe of discourse is not an individual.

Please note that another universe of discourse can be given so that {lo=20
linji} is one or more individuals, but the selection of universe of=20
discourse depends on the epistemology of context, and cannot defined by the=
=20
language.

=20

--=20
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 e=
mail 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.

------=_Part_2247_18121773.1391943211994
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><br>Le dimanche 9 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 01:25:00 UTC+9, se=
lpa'i a =C3=A9crit&nbsp;:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:=
 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">la .g=
uskant. cu cusku di'e
<br>&gt; Moreover, calling something in a domain of plural variable "one or=
 more
<br>&gt; individuals" is misleading for me.
<br>&gt; The term for "something in a domain of plural variable" should be =
first
<br>&gt; given; after that "individual" is defined using it. The concept
<br>&gt; "individual" is only a special case of "something in a domain of p=
lural
<br>&gt; variable" as defined above.
<br>
<br>What would be another case of SDPV that is not an individual? I can't=
=20
<br>really make sense of your argument, because for me there are only=20
<br>individuals and nothing else (DPV or not).
<br>
<br>&gt; Something that is broda is not always "one or more individuals" de=
fined
<br>&gt; above: when a universe of discourse is given, there is no need tha=
t {lo
<br>&gt; broda} in the universe of discourse is finally separated into indi=
vidual
<br>&gt; pieces that are members of the universe of discourse.
<br>
<br>Please give an example where that does not happen.
<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Suppose a universe of d=
iscourse is given, where {lo linji} is in a domain of plural variable.</div=
><div>In this universe of discourse, {lo linji xi no} can be separated into=
 shorter {lo linji xi pany}:</div><div><br></div><div>lo linji xi pano cu m=
e lo linji xi no</div><div>i</div><div>lo linji xi papa cu me lo linji xi n=
o</div><div>i</div><div>...</div><div><br></div><div>Repeat the separation =
also for {lo linji xi pany}.</div><div>After infinite times of separation, =
{lo linji} is finally separated into {lo mokca} which is individual:</div><=
div><br></div><div>RO DA poi ke'a me lo mokca zo'u lo mokca me DA</div><div=
><br></div><div>but for any shorter {lo linji}:</div><div><br></div><div>na=
ku lo linji me lo mokca</div><div><br></div><div>Therefore, any&nbsp;{lo li=
nji} does not satisfy&nbsp;</div><div>RO DA poi ke'a me lo linji zo'u lo li=
nji me DA</div><div><br></div><div>{lo linji} in this universe of discourse=
 is not an individual.</div><div><br></div><div>Please note that another un=
iverse of discourse can be given so that {lo linji} is one or more individu=
als, but the selection of universe of discourse depends on the epistemology=
 of context, and cannot defined by the language.</div><div><br></div><div>&=
nbsp;</div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.<br />
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out=
">https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br />

------=_Part_2247_18121773.1391943211994--