From a.rosta@v21.me.uk Thu Jan 06 09:13:50 2005 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@v21.me.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 71202 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2005 17:13:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.166) by m16.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Jan 2005 17:13:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO heineken.flexi-surf.co.uk) (62.41.128.20) by mta5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Jan 2005 17:13:49 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer ([217.140.37.133]) by heineken.flexi-surf.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id j06FEIf21153 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2005 15:14:19 GMT Message-ID: <000001c4f413$05e583a0$42e1fea9@oemcomputer> To: References: <20050104220410.75220.qmail@web41907.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 22:10:59 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 62.41.128.20 From: "And Rosta" Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Holiday Present from the BPFK: The gadri Proposal Has Been Completed X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=175222075 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 23574 xorxes: > --- And Rosta wrote: > > > When there is reference to a group, (for example {loi bakni}, > > > and {lo gunma be lo bakni}) then you need to use {lu'a} or > > > {lo cmima be} in order to get to the members of the group, and > > > then quantify. A direct quantifier in this case will quantify > > > over groups, because the referents of those sumti are the groups, > > > not the members. > > > > Presumably lu'a or cmima are needed to say "3 members of lo vo > > nanmu", too, right? > > No, {lo vo nanmu} does not refer to a group, it refers to four men, > as individuals, the distinction matters. That doesn't mean that what > we claim about them is distributive. The idea of plural reference > is mostly taken from a paper by Thomas McKay, which can be > read here: http://philosophy.syr.edu/ I've given the first 3 chapters a hurried but not perfunctory reading, & find none of his arguments against singularism in the least persuasive. Nor do I see why the distinction matters. Are the clinching arguments to be found later on? [I have also given a very hurried read through what I could find on the twiki; I didn't see anything explanatory there, but maybe I missed it.] But at any rate, I could rephrase my questiion: To say "3 of the- individuals-among lo vo nanmu", one would need to use a predicate meaning "is-an-individual-among" -- is that right? And "ci lo vo nanmu" is "three quartets of men"? --And.