From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU Tue Jul 26 12:48:05 1994
Message-Id: <199407261647.AA04947@nfs1.digex.net>
Date: Tue Jul 26 12:48:05 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

> 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.

No, lu'a <argument> means "an individual of the set/mass/individuals
of <argument>".

du means "is equal to"

lu'i <argument> is "the set of things designated by <argument>"

>
> If so, you have it!  In TLI Loglan, using my sense of ME (which I
> think is now official) the derivation goes in the other direction.
> To say "the set of the men I have in mind" one must first construct
> the predicate "me le mrenu", then use "lea", which constructs sets
> from predicates but cannot construct them from arguments, to build
> "lea me le mrenu".

"Lea me le mrenu" would be {lu'i le nanmu} in Lojban.

The predicate "me le mrenu" would be {du lu'a le nanmu}.


> Either approach is OK; if one can construct the set of multiple
> designata of an argument, one can construct the predicate applying to
> them, and vice versa.
>
> Someone else will need to tell me whether Jorge's Lojban is correct.

Indeed. I wouldn't trust it myself  :)

>
>                               --Randall Holmes
>
Jorge