Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 16:48:48 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711192148.QAA08674@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: John Cowan Sender: Lojban list From: John Cowan Organization: Lojban Peripheral Subject: Re: Events, Sisku, le, lo X-To: Lojban List To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 839 X-From-Space-Date: Wed Nov 19 16:49:03 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU la kartyr. djim. cusku di'e > As I learned it, the referent of a set in extension is all of the members > separately. > Example: > > mi nelci ro lo mlatu > I like all cats = I like cat #1 AND I like cat #2 AND etc. etc. > > Whereas, the referent of a set in intension is the set itself: > > mi nelci lo'i mlatu Just so. > I'm not really sure what that would mean, applied to cats, which are not > collective creatures, although to me it makes > a lot more sense when used for numbers and things like that. The problem is with "nelci", which just doesn't make much sense when applied to sets. Not many non-mathematical predicates do, although "ralju" (chief) and "cnano" (normal) are exceptions. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban