Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by nfs2.digex.net with SMTP id AA13834 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Mon, 30 Jan 1995 20:51:36 -0500 Message-Id: <199501310151.AA13834@nfs2.digex.net> Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5392; Mon, 30 Jan 95 20:52:12 EST Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1195; Mon, 30 Jan 1995 20:06:51 -0500 Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 20:07:28 EST Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: replies re. ka X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Mon Jan 30 20:51:39 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu This may be a repeat. I already posted an answer to this a couple of days ago, but And didn't receive it, so maybe it never reached the list. (to doi goran mi spusku bau la gliban ki'u le nu krefu le nu mi pu spusku kei li re toi) And: > Ex, she knows that x is the identity of the set of the colours of the > house. (1) ko'a djuno le du'u le zdani cu skari makau (2) da zo'u ko'a djuno le du'u da ka du lo'i se skari be le zdani If the house is blue, then (1) tells me that she knows that the house is blue, while (2) tells me that she knows what is the identity of the set {blue}. Are those two equivalent? > But anyway, the identity of the set is the sum of those properties > that differentiate the set from all others. Why can one not like > this sum of properties? I don't see how liking the sum of properties of the set {blue} can be equivalent to liking that the house is blue. > > How would you say {ko'a cusku le sedu'u xokau prenu ba klama} = "She > > said how many people are coming." > > Ex, she said that x is the cardinality of the set of people that are > coming. Right, but then you have to speak of cardinalities and sets. Do you suggest that as a colloquial form? What is "cardinality" in Lojban? > ... But do we need > makau? Say koha is red and kohe is blue. Then > > ro da, da is member of {koha, kohe}, ro de, da skari de: > koha kohe frica le ka keha skari de > > says that being red and being blue are differences between koha and > kohe. I don't see what your objections to this are going to be, but > I'm sure there will be some. Look at this as practice for explaining > to the community at large. What you give is equivalent to: ro de poi se skari ko'a a ko'e zo'u: ko'a ko'e frica le ka ke'a skari de You can even limit it to only colours that they don't have in common by changing {a} to {onai}. But that is still two sentences: {ko'a ko'e frica le ka ke'a skari *blue* ije ko'a ko'e frica le ka ke'a skari *red*}. Does {ko'a ko'e frica le ka ke'a skari *red*} mean that one of them is red and the other isn't, or that they are each of a different type of redness? To me, it's the latter. Jorge