From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Fri Jun 02 22:54:05 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3230 ; Fri, 02 Jun 95 22:54:01 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Fri, 02 Jun 95 00:24:29 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa19606; 2 Jun 95 1:24 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3506; Thu, 01 Jun 95 20:22:21 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 8106; Thu, 1 Jun 1995 20:22:22 -0400 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 20:22:33 -0400 Reply-To: "Dylan P. Thurston" Sender: Lojban list From: "Dylan P. Thurston" Subject: Re: quantifiers on sumti - late response X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander In-Reply-To: <01HR38FNJWQABIKVK0@NETOP6.HARVARD.EDU> Message-ID: <9506020124.aa19606@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R mi cusku di'e > > The inner quantifier is {ro} unless it's changed, no? By putting in > > {su'o}, you explicitly say it's not "the one and only set", but some > > piece of that set. la xorxes. cusku di'e > ... > So {lo'i [ro] broda} and {lo'i su'o broda} refer to the same set, but in > the second case you are also saying that it is not the empty set. Yes, sorry about the confusion. > > > But you never encounter {lo'e remna}. Or rather, you can't conclude > > > anything about {lo'e} remna from properties of the one you encounter. > > > ... > > > > Yes, this is quite true, but not relevant. And's point is that the > > properties of {lo'e remna}, unlike the properties of {lo'i} or {loi}, > > are of the same type as the properties of {lo remna}; > > 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}. Any property of {lo'e remna}, on the other hand, you could probably reasonably conclude is a property if most {remna}. > ... > > Huh? How else would you say "x1 has exactly one head"? > > I didn't express myself clearly. {ta se stedu pa da} means "that has > exactly one thing as head". But there is another possible 1-place > predicate "x1 is one-headed" (or whatever) that is not a > relationship between two objects but only a property of one. > Say {pavselstedu} is that predicate, then you can say {lo'e remna > cu pavselstedu}, but you can't say {lo'e remna cu se stedu pa da}, > because there are more than one thing that are in relationship > {stedu} with {lo'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. 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. In any case, I'd really, really, like {ro da cu stedu lo'e remna} to be true. (Are you saying {lo'e remna cu se stedu ro da} would be true?) I dislike very much introducing expressions with lujvo that have no (even approximate) paraphrase with just gismu. > > mu'o mi'e. dilyn. > > > co'o mi'e xorxes mu'o mi'e. dilyn.