From sentto-44114-14599-1025828619-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Thu Jul 04 17:24:11 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 04 Jul 2002 17:24:11 z (PDT) Received: from n40.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.108]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17QGtO-0007iA-01 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Thu, 04 Jul 2002 17:24:10 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-14599-1025828619-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.193] by n40.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 Jul 2002 00:23:39 -0000 X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 5 Jul 2002 00:23:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 99420 invoked from network); 5 Jul 2002 00:23:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Jul 2002 00:23:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m05.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.8) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Jul 2002 00:23:38 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.21.) id r.125.1313a673 (25715) for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 20:23:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <125.1313a673.2a564105@aol.com> To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 20:23:33 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] pro-sumti question Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_125.1313a673.2a564105_boundary" X-archive-position: 129 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: pycyn@aol.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --part1_125.1313a673.2a564105_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/4/2002 6:25:03 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > >{le remei} is, in context, exactly equivalent to {lei re danlu} and subject > >to same interpretation -- if not quite exactly the same grammar. > > It is not exactly equivalent. {lei re danlu} refers to the two > animals. {le remei} could refer to each of any number of pairs. > If there were two cats and two dogs, for example, {le remei} could > be "each of the two pairs". So even if you accept the inconvenient > implicit quantifier proposed by the Book for {lei}, you don't have > to create a strange interpretation for {le remei}. > Why I said "in context." Of course, in another situation or even with a different interpretive principle, {le remei} might refer to any pair you have in mind, including pairs of pairs and so. But, if you want to insist (as Jordon seems to) that {le remei} means mass of the cat and the dog, then you are stuck with the rest of it. That mass is tired if only the dog (or only the cat) is, just as the mass chases the potman if only the dog does. Masses aren't as useless as sets, but they need to be treated carefully. Interesting question. Is {ko'a joi ko'e gunma ko'a ce ko'e ce ko'i} true or not? If true then your remark backs up my point about masses being only partial. If false then, then {loi gerku cu gunma lo'i gerku} is also false, against a number of basic sematic principles. {gunma} means -- like most predicates -- "is A mass" not "The complete mass" from some set. {remei} notice talks about the size of the set underlying, not about completeness either. --part1_125.1313a673.2a564105_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/4/2002 6:25:03 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


>{le remei} is, in context, exactly equivalent to {lei re danlu} and subject
>to same interpretation -- if not quite exactly the same grammar.

It is not exactly equivalent. {lei re danlu} refers to the two
animals. {le remei} could refer to each of any number of pairs.
If there were two cats and two dogs, for example, {le remei} could
be "each of the two pairs". So even if you accept the inconvenient
implicit quantifier proposed by the Book for {lei}, you don't have
to create a strange interpretation for {le remei}.


Why I said "in context."  Of course, in another situation or even with a different interpretive principle, {le remei} might refer to any pair you have in mind, including pairs of pairs and so.  But, if you want to insist (as Jordon seems to) that {le remei} means mass of the cat and the dog, then you are stuck with the rest of it. That mass is tired if only the dog (or only the cat) is, just as the mass chases the potman if only the dog does.  Masses aren't as useless as sets, but they need to be treated carefully.

<I think that's a big confusion. For starters {gunma} and {remei}
refer to relationships, {le remei} refers to things that go in the
x1 of {remei}. If {le remei} refers to only part of a mass I could
say {mi remei} on the grounds that I am part of a pair. That doesn't
make sense. The quantifier on {lei} cannot get suffused into
the relationship {remei}. One thing has nothing to do with the
other.>

Interesting question.  Is {ko'a joi ko'e gunma ko'a ce ko'e ce ko'i} true or not? If true then your remark backs up my point about masses being only partial.  If false then, then {loi gerku cu gunma lo'i gerku} is also false, against a number of basic sematic principles.  {gunma} means -- like most predicates -- "is A mass" not "The complete mass" from some set.  {remei} notice talks about the size of the set underlying, not about completeness either.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
{short description of image}

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
--part1_125.1313a673.2a564105_boundary--