Message-Id: <m0rpNJJ-0000YuC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Thu, 16 Mar 1995 18:41:11 +0000
Reply-To:     ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: selbri as sumti
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Sat, 11 Mar 95 20:14:26 EST.)
Content-Length: 2592
Lines: 63

Jorge:
> > Tho it might be objected that a category is not a set, I think
> > I would prefer to interpret {luha} as neutralizing the distinction,
> > and favour the last of the three versions.
> What is the difference between category and set?

There is at least one difference, but I'd rather not bring it up,
because I would like to be able to use {lohi}, {luha} etc. when
talking about categories, & don't want to persuade anyone against
that.

> > >        mi citka lo finpe poi cmima lo cizra
> > Still not quite what I want. I want to say that a class that is
> > pisuho of the class of fish/food/books is strange.
> Change {lo cizra} to {lo cizra ke finpe klesi pagbu}.

  mi citka lo finpe poi cmima lo cizra gihe pagbu be lo klesi be ro lohi
  finpe (or lohi ro? - I keep on forgetting)

Okay.

> I don't think your problem arises in this case for the reason I gave
> before: there are only existential quantifiers, which commute without
> any problem.

I wasn't actually concerned with quantifier scope. I was concerned with
how to talk about something both as a category and as a member of a
category. The solution seems to be to use predicates like cmima and
klesi. I guess I was hoping there was a more concise way to do it,
just as {lo finpe} is more concise than {lo cmima be lo klesi be ro lohi
finpe}.

> >    ca le cabdei mi baho gasnu luha lo roldei gihe klesi be
> >       ro lohi selzukte be mi
> > - again, horribly messy.
> And not what you want. I'm not even sure it's grammatical. The {gi'e}
> falls outside of the {lo}.

Why isn't it [lo {[roldei] gihe [klesi be ro lohi selzukte be mi]}]?

> Besides, you didn't restrict it to the activities that you do today.
> You are saying that today you did all your quotidian activities,
> including those that don't happen today.

I was thinking {luha} is "some members of" rather than "all members of".

> I'd say:
>    ca le cabdei mi ba'o gasnu ro lo mi ca roldjeke'u selzukte
> where {roldjeke'u} is "x1 is an event that recurs every day"
> (note that it is a krefu, not the same identical event but a
> repetition of an event.)

Yes, {krefu} is surely involved. But I feel the x2 - what the x1 is
a recurrence of - needs to be specified. The problem is that in a sense
me falling downstairs and breaking my leg is a recurrence of something
that happens to me every day, albeit something very general, e.g.
something happening to me.
I think that how to specify the x2 of krefu using a {lo} gadri is
the kind of thing I've already been asking about: it wd seem to refer
to a category rather than an individual.

---
And