Message-Id: <m0rEaEG-00007OC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Fri, 2 Dec 1994 15:55:43 -0500
Reply-To:     Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: Some thoughts on Lojban gadri
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1254
Lines: 22

>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