From lojbab Fri Dec 2 15:55:54 1994 Received: from access4.digex.net by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA24420 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Fri, 2 Dec 1994 15:55:49 -0500 Received: by access4.digex.net id AA19933 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for lojbab); Fri, 2 Dec 1994 15:55:43 -0500 Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 15:55:43 -0500 From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199412022055.AA19933@access4.digex.net> To: lojbab@access.digex.net Subject: Re: Some thoughts on Lojban gadri Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Status: RO >In such a case, it is only part of {lei re nanmu} that hauls. > >> On the other hand, I gues the "Relevant portion for context" could >> suffice here too - the smallest relevant portion just happens to be "all". >> But this seems to be stretching things. I have no problem with "lei re remn >> having 4 legs as a default for most remna pairs that I know. > >Remember that a claim to have four legs is a claim to have exactly four legs. >There is no doubt that "piro lei re remna" has four legs exactly (assuming >two-legged persons), and that "pisu'o lei re remna" has any number from >zero to four. But what is the interpretation of "lei re remna" without a >fractionator? Historically, it has been the latter case, "pisu'o". That is the point about "relevant portion for context" coupled with the part inheriting the relevant properties of the whole. I would presume that (given pisu'o as the outer qiuantifier), that in the absence of modifying context, that lei nanmu has 2 legs, i.e. is an instance of the in-mind Mr. Man and lei nanmu remei has 4 legs, being an instance of Mr. Man-Pair. Thus, by dealing with in-minds, and no constraining context, it would seem that youy would often get property inheritsance that looks like piro. lojbab