Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.17.20 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.17.20;
Message-ID: <52FE053C.3000604@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 12:59:56 +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> <52F7A4D5.5070106@gmx.de> <56096dec-1969-420d-b4e5-b8539cbe0cc0@googlegroups.com> <52F8FAA2.9030009@gmx.de> <d6efd1cb-67df-4eac-bbfa-594e398d752e@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <d6efd1cb-67df-4eac-bbfa-594e398d752e@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
> {lo sidbo} does not refer to one or more individuals, because, for every
> {lo sidbo xi my}, there is another {lo sidbo xi ny} such that {lo sidbo
> xi ny cu me lo sidbo xi my i naku lo sidbo xi my cu me lo sidbo xi ny},
>   therefore {lo sidbo xi my} does not satisfy the condition for being an
> individual {RO DA poi ke'a me lo sidbo xi my zo'u lo sidbo xi my cu me
> DA}. It means that there is no individual {lo sidbo} in this universe of
> discourse. Therefore {lo sidbo} is neither an individual nor individuals.

To me it looks more like this entire process of sub-grouping is a 
strawman. I don't see why I should be forced to sub-divide {lo sidbo} 
into infinitely large {lo sidbo be ny} when I could just as well just 
look at each individual {sidbo} in isolation.

[ s1 , s2 , s3 , ... ]

Why can't I just look at s1 by itself, and s2 by itself and so on? For 
each s_x, it holds that:

   ro'oi da poi ke'a me s_x zo'u: s_x me da

So each s_x is an individual.

>     And maybe this helps: Do you see a difference between "referent" and
>     "individual"? What do you consider the difference to be?
>
>
>
> Yes. The identity of referent is defined as follows:
> "X are the same thing as Y" =ca'e {X me Y ije Y me X}
>
> On the other hand, "an individual" is defined as follows:
> "X is an individual" =ca'e {RO DA poi ke'a me X zo'u X me DA}

Each s_x satisfies the definition of "individual". Any pair of {s_x, 
s_y} fails the "sameness" condition. The two definitions don't exclude 
each other.

Every sumti has certain referents, and it might have the same referents 
as another sumti, in which case the two sumti are "the same", or they 
might have different referents, in which case the two sumti are not the 
same. In either case, the referents themselves are individuals.

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.