From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU Tue Jul 26 13:01:57 1994
Message-Id: <199407261701.AA06220@nfs1.digex.net>
Date: Tue Jul 26 13:01:57 1994
Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Response to Randall Holmes on Loglan/Lojban "me"
X-To:         holmes@diamond.idbsu.edu, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Status: RO

> On Jorge's account, in his second message, his construction will
> NOT work, for the usual reasons.  Too bad!
>

Ok, let me try again.

You wanted:

> The construction Jorge describes (du lu'a <argument>) sounds as if it
> might work, if it is indeed the case that lu'a <argument> means "the
> set of the things designated by <argument>".  I assume du means "is a
> member of set..."  Again, I do not know Lojban vocabulary.

If you want literally that, then: (cmima lu'i <argument>) is just that.


cmima mim cmi      member           x1 is a member/element of set x2;

lu'i      LAhE     the set composed of

I still don't see a problem with {lu'i le nanmu} for "lea me le mrenu".

I don't think {lu'i le nanmu} is a set with one element "the men", but
rather the set that has "all the men" as elements.


>                               --Randall Holmes
>
Jorge