From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri May 12 06:41:54 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 12 May 2006 06:41:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FeXtf-00030i-Q1 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 12 May 2006 06:41:35 -0700 Received: from web81315.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.41]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FeXte-00030b-14 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 12 May 2006 06:41:35 -0700 Received: (qmail 8300 invoked by uid 60001); 12 May 2006 13:41:32 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=bRSORXsXOmk8EdlWaDmDSy0p0bTXP4IB9MGiRSR2mApf8ebbIg1txNNJDw4f3i2Fgi6x0S8H3X0qK1FB+9f4NP4RGZ63M8meZ/qdnGdlzQBXDszwbAaGeAxC1bgbUpbUb1JINkLzenhkHEYN+mb9KNGClUoDA/s59AHwHIfjjBI= ; Message-ID: <20060512134132.8298.qmail@web81315.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.237.223.173] by web81315.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 12 May 2006 06:41:32 PDT Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 06:41:32 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: furry species? To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <448.3992a0.3195d3bc@wmconnect.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-archive-position: 11512 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list This gets philosophically murky. A species of bears is presumably at least a bunch of bears and of course a bunch of bears can have (distributively) fur. "All species of bears" refers to a bunch of bunches of bears, but a bunch of bunches reduces to a bunch comprised of all the members of all the member bunches and, as such, it can have fur (distributively) as well. But this in some sense fails to take species of bears as species (something more than a bunch of bears -- just what is unclear). That is, a species of bear does not have fur individually, the way an individual bear does -- or the way a species is a species. So the assumption of the claim is that {ro se cribe cu se gacri lo kerfa} is to be understood at a point halfway between: {se gacri lo kerfa} distributes (the point of the {ro}) over lo se cribe at the level at which "is a species" does also (the point of the parenthesis). Lojban doesn't do this totally unambiguously as of now, but reason helps a bit here (not enoguh, apparently, given the othre discussion currently running). --- MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com wrote: > In a message dated 5/12/2006 4:22:03 AM Central > Standard Time, > ecartis@digitalkingdom.org writes: > > > > > As a separate thing, yes. But a kind of > bear as bear has to go in x1. > > > For example, I don't think you can say: > > > > > > ro se cribe cu se gacri lo kerfa > > > Every species of bear (as a species) is > covered by fur. > > > > > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > > > > > > Why not? It seems to parse just fine to me. > > > > mu'omi'e .aleks. > > > > Bears have fur. Species don't have fur. > > stevo > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.