From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Fri Jun 02 22:54:46 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3236 ; Fri, 02 Jun 95 22:54:44 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Fri, 02 Jun 95 16:05:59 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa16982; 2 Jun 95 17:05 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7673; Fri, 02 Jun 95 12:03:05 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 2669; Fri, 2 Jun 1995 11:32:20 -0400 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 11:26:57 EDT Reply-To: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu Subject: Re: quantifiers on sumti - late response X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander Message-ID: <9506021705.aa16982@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R la dilyn cusku di'e > > The properties of {loi remna} are of the same type as those of > > {lo remna}. > Well, they're probably the same type, but there's not generally any > particular relation between a property of any {loi remna} and a > property of {pa remna}. I agree. > Any property of {lo'e remna}, on the other > hand, you could probably reasonably conclude is a property if most > {remna}. I don't agree. If you accept {ta stedu lo'e remna}, you can't in any reasonable way conclude that {ta stedu so'e remna}. > I think the issue really is what counts as identity here. I would say > the typical human has one head, the typical head; but I would also > allow a name for a particular head to be used transparently to name > the typical head in this context. I don't understand what you mean. If you accept {ta stedu lo'e remna} and {ti stedu lo'e remna}, where {ti} and {ta} refer to different things, then you have to accept that {su'oreda stedu lo'e remna}. > Does this make sense? I'm trying to relate this to more ordinary > problems--a single object can well have more than one name, so a > sentence like {ro da broda} could well be completed in several ways. What is the cardinality of {lo'i stedu be lo'e remna}? I understand it to be the set of human heads. > In any case, I'd really, really, like {ro da cu stedu lo'e remna} to > be true. Everything is a human head ??????!!!!!!!!! > (Are you saying {lo'e remna cu se stedu ro da} would be > true?) No, I'm not! Only human heads. > I dislike very much introducing expressions with lujvo that > have no (even approximate) paraphrase with just gismu. You mean the lujvo {pavyselstedu}? That was just to find a way to express the natural idea in English that the typical human has one head. But the sentence structure in Lojban is different from English. In English you have a clear subject and a predicate about that subject. So "the typical human has one head" is a statement about "the typical human", and not at all about a certain head. In lojban, "one head" would be as much the subject as "the typical human" in a literal translation, which says something quite different. > mu'o mi'e. dilyn. > co'o mi'e xorxes