From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Sun Jun 04 23:49:17 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3253 ; Sun, 04 Jun 95 23:49:15 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Sun, 04 Jun 95 00:57:51 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa04596; 4 Jun 95 1:57 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3769; Sat, 03 Jun 95 20:55:45 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6041; Sat, 3 Jun 1995 20:55:45 -0400 Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 20:59:58 EDT Reply-To: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu Subject: Re: loi stedu be lo'e remna (was Re: quantifiers on sumti) X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander Message-ID: <9506040157.aa04596@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R la dilyn cusku di'e > la xorxes. cusku di'e > > 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}. > > Let me try rephrasing this. In And's terminology, {lo'e remna} is the > myopic singular. That is, it's only thought of as one person; Right. But I don't see why that should affect the other sumti of the sentence. > so all the > various {ti} and {ta}s referring to what you probably think of as > different heads actually all refer to the single head of the single > person. But {ti} and {ta} refer to things you point at. That's independent of the predication in which they appear. If I say {ti e ta stedu lo'e remna ije ti pritu ta} then you can't have {ti} and {ta} having the same referent. > Again, it's a question of what makes heads different. Because {lo'e > remna} signals that we're considering there to be only one human, the > mere fact that two heads are attached to what would ordinarily be > considered two different humans is not enough to make the heads > different. No that's not enough that's true, but the mere fact that two normally different objects are predicated about with {lo'e remna} does not make them the same object. Consider a different predicate: mi e do nelci lo'e remna >From that we can conclude that: su'ore da nelci lo'e remna The same should happen with the ones who {stedu} as with the ones who {nelci}. > > What is the cardinality of {lo'i stedu be lo'e remna}? I understand > > it to be the set of human heads. > > Yes; it's the set of all human heads, which has exactly one element. How many elements has {lo'i nelci be lo'e remna} then? Also one? > Perhaps one way to say it is that {lo'e} gets lifted up so that {lo'i > stedu be lo'e remna} is essentially the same as {lo'e stedu be lo remna}. That can't be, first because {lo'e stedu} is not a set of anything. Second {lo'e stedu be lo remna} is the typical head of at least one human, so it doesn't really give the human head, that should be {lo'e stedu be lo'e remna} or {lo'e stedu be ro remna} or {lo'e stedu be piro loi remna}, or something. > > > (Are you saying {lo'e remna cu se stedu ro da} would be > > > true?) > Repeat the question, with {ro} => {pa}. I don't think you said that, but > I wasn't sure just where you stood. No, I don't say that. I say {lo'e remna cu se stedu so'ida}, and I don't see why that would mean anything different from {so'ida stedu lo'e remna}. I see the {lo'e remna} not so much as an argument of the relation, but as modifying the relation to one with one less argument. > mu'o mi'e. dilyn. > mu'o mi'e xorxes