Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 19:14:14 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712090014.TAA28594@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Sender: Lojban list From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Subject: Re: semisummary: countability X-To: lojban To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1584 X-From-Space-Date: Mon Dec 8 19:14:18 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU And: >> 1) If {[piro] lei re valsi cu valsi} is true, then is {[piro] lei re valsi} >> a member of {lo'i valsi}? >> >> 2) If two words are wordage, is half a word wordage too? >> i xu zoi gy thr gy cu valsi bau le glico > > My answer to (2) would be No: wordage >contains at least one word, because half a word lacks the >requisite properties (like having a sense and a selma`o). If those are requisites, then {lu mi klama li'u} is not wordage, because it has no selmaho. Also {lo'u mi pi ku klama ka cu le'u} is not wordage because it has neither sense nor selmaho. >As for (1), I don't know. If you changed the example to pertain >to {xekri} or {djacu}, the answer would be Yes. But I can't think >of a principled reason for deciding it in the case of {valsi}, >{mlatu}, etc. I would want {ro da poi valsi cu cmima lo'i valsi} to be true. "Every x that is a word is a member of a set of words." >I'm not so much seeking some kind of collective agreement on the >answers to these questions as much as some kind of collective >agreement on what the internally-coherent options are. I agree. My feeling is that the {lei ci valsi cu valsi} option is not consistent. For example, could I say: i mi tcidu lu ta plise li'u e zo ta e zo plise ti "I read {ta plise} and {ta} and {plise} here." i seni'ibo mi tcidu ci plise ti "Therefore, I read exactly three words here." If I can't say that, then how do you logically expand {ci plise} in a way that {lu ta plise li'u} is not a valid instantiation? co'o mi'e xorxes