Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.15.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.15.19;
Message-ID: <52F7A4D5.5070106@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 16:55:01 +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> <52F65A5C.90605@gmx.de> <348c23bf-6d9f-4a05-bfe7-69b141c03cb7@googlegroups.com> <52F776EE.6070406@gmx.de> <6ffd64d2-2e2c-4b83-8722-b7f262f5837a@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <6ffd64d2-2e2c-4b83-8722-b7f262f5837a@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
> Actually, I didn't need {lo mokca} in order to say that any {lo linji}
> are not one or more individuals.
> I mentioned {lo mokca} only for clarifying the structure of {lo linji},
> but it was really unnecessary.
> Only I need to say is that {lo linji xi ny me lo linji xi my} continues
> infinitely in that universe of discourse.
>
> In other words, this is an infinite instance of {lo re prenu cu me lo mu
> prenu}.

I'm not sure I follow.

Let's say the original single line segment L looks like this:

|-----------------------------------------------|   <- {lo linji}
                         L

You seem to be saying that L is not an individual because we can turn it 
into multiple smaller line segments A, B, C, like this:

|---------------| |---------------| |---------------|
         A                 B                 C

Further, you seem to be saying that A, B, and C are all among L. You 
also seem to be saying that each of A, B, C are not individuals either, 
because we can further split them, like this:

|-------|-------| |-------|-------| |-------|-------|
     M       N         O       P         Q       R

And that M and N are among A, and so on.

Is this what you are saying?

I would say that the only line segment that is among L is L itself. A is 
not among L, nor are B or C, let alone M, N, O, ...

A, B and C are *part* of L. M is *part* of A.

If you introduce new objects, then you are creating a new universe of 
discourse each time, so the original singular {lo linji} is no longer 
relevant. It seems like your {me} is jumping across domains.

Would you say that {lo sakta cu me lo najnimryjisra}? For me it would be 
a very definite No.

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.