From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Thu Jan 06 17:23:53 2005 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 66302 invoked from network); 7 Jan 2005 01:23:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.167) by m1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Jan 2005 01:23:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Jan 2005 01:23:51 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1Cmir1-00044a-FF for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:23:51 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Cmiqp-0003R9-JB; Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:23:39 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:23:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from web41902.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.153]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Cmiqe-0001u2-9F for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:23:28 -0800 Received: (qmail 2820 invoked by uid 60001); 7 Jan 2005 01:22:57 -0000 Message-ID: <20050107012257.2818.qmail@web41902.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.114.197.65] by web41902.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:22:57 PST Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 17:22:57 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <000001c4f413$05e583a0$42e1fea9@oemcomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-archive-position: 9190 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar X-list: lojban-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 64.81.49.134 From: Jorge "Llambías" Reply-To: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Subject: [lojban] Re: Holiday Present from the BPFK: The gadri Proposal Has Been Completed X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=142311107 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 23582 --- And Rosta wrote: > > 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? Probably not. I don't remember exactly, but the final chapters are very technical. We didn't adopt his plural quantifiers anyway, Lojban quantifiers are still the ordinary singular ones, but unquantified sumti can have several referents. The distinction matters if we want to give a general interpretation to quentifiers. {PA } is quantification over the (usually more than one) referents of . For any given sumti. >[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? {ci lo vo nanmu cu klama} Exactly three of the referents of "lo vo nanmu" are goers. There is no need for a predicate there, but {me } gives the predicate "x1 is/are among the referents of ", so in general we have: PA = PA da poi ke'a me PA x, such that x is among the referents of . > And "ci lo vo > nanmu" is "three quartets of men"? No, that would be {ci lo gunma be lo vo nanmu}, or {ci loi vo nanmu}. The referents of {lo gunma be lo vo nanmu}, or of {loi vo nanmu} which is the same thing by definition, are quartets of men, so here with the quantifier we count quartets. mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250