From LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:44:34 2010 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Sun, 7 Feb 1993 09:20:57 -0500 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7130; Sun, 07 Feb 93 09:19:58 EST Received: from CUVMB.BITNET by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 0188; Sun, 07 Feb 93 09:21:18 EST Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1993 14:19:19 GMT Reply-To: Ivan A Derzhanski Sender: Lojban list From: Ivan A Derzhanski Subject: Goats' legs and counting To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: John Cowan's message of Tue, 2 Feb 1993 17:03:35 -0500 <5164.9302030447@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> Status: RO X-Status: X-From-Space-Date: Sun Feb 7 14:19:19 1993 X-From-Space-Address: @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Message-ID: > Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1993 17:03:35 -0500 > From: John Cowan > > la mark. clsn. cusku di'e > > > John says the enumeration must be complete, that is, you can't say that a > > goat has two legs, even though it has, because to speak completely, you > > have to say it has four. > > I say that if and only if you use an exact numeral. Of course you can say > it has at-least-two legs with no problem. I've never argued against this position, but I've never agreed with it. If you say that the goat has two legs, what you are saying is that > lo'e kanba cu se tuple re da poi tuple -> > re da poi tuple zo'u lo'e kanba cu se tuple da -- `there are two things, restricted to being legs, such that the typical goat is belegged by them'. Lo and behold, there are. Say the two left legs. Why is it wrong? There are two of them, they are legs, and they beleg the typical goat. Obviously the same could be said with respect to the two right legs, or any other two legs of the goat. In any case, if I have in mind two legs by which the goat is belegged, it shouldn't matter whether it is belegged by something else as well (by two more legs, as it were). Ivan