From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sat Mar 04 16:09:51 2000 Received: (qmail 20687 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2000 00:10:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 5 Mar 2000 00:10:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.76) by mta2.onelist.org with SMTP; 5 Mar 2000 00:10:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 17416 invoked by uid 0); 5 Mar 2000 00:10:06 -0000 Message-ID: <20000305001006.17415.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.41.247.39 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sat, 04 Mar 2000 16:10:06 PST X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.39] To: lojban@onelist.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Sets etc. Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 16:10:06 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed X-eGroups-From: "Jorge Llambias" From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 2216 la adam cusku di'e >I meant without describing it in a different way. There is a group of >10 cats. A ball rolls by. A few of them (4, it so happens) chase >after it. I say, "lei pano mlatu cu jersi le bolci". I have thereby >created a mass, which I may consider to have 2 members, the >chasers and the non-chasers. Maybe you're making the example more complicated than it needs be. How about if all ten cats chase the ball, four of them are white and the rest are black. Then you are telling me that you can view the mass of ball-chasers as having two "members", the mass of four white cats and the mass of six black cats. (I changed the example because I cannot see any reason why you would say that ten cats chase the ball when in your mind you are only considering four cats to be chasing the ball. If you describe a situation as ten cats chasing the ball it makes no sense to me that you tell yourself that only four of them are chasing it. But changing the sub-masses to black and white cats still retains the point of your argument, I hope.) I think I don't have a problem with that. So you'd be arguing that {le ralju be le'i pano mlatu} could only be one cat, whereas {le ralju be lei pano mlatu} could conceivably be a mass of more than one cat, it could be {lei xa xekri} for instance. Is that right? Again, as with the distinction you proposed for {simxu}, it makes a lot of sense to me, but I don't really see it as a valuable enough distinction to justify the use sets. But do use it if you do find it useful of course. co'o mi'e xorxes ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com