From a.rosta@v21.me.uk Tue Jan 11 12:05:04 2005 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@v21.me.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 74563 invoked from network); 11 Jan 2005 20:05:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.166) by m25.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 Jan 2005 20:05:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO heineken.flexi-surf.co.uk) (62.41.128.20) by mta5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Jan 2005 20:05:04 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host81-7-63-241.surfport24.v21.co.uk [81.7.63.241]) by heineken.flexi-surf.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id j0BI3aS21558 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:03:37 GMT Message-ID: <012a01c4f818$d5051480$c2e1fea9@oemcomputer> To: References: <20050107012257.2818.qmail@web41902.mail.yahoo.com> <00a001c4f4f2$8ac75a00$42e1fea9@oemcomputer> <20050111190105.GC17368@mit.edu> Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:01:52 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 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: 23622 Rob: > On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 07:45:29PM -0000, And Rosta wrote: > > This said, I don't understand how come "ci lo vo nanmu" quantifies > > over the four referents of "lo vo nanmu", yet "ci loi vo nanmu" > > quantifies not over the one referent of "loi vo nanmu" but > > rather over the quasi-infinite number of things that "loi vo > > nanmu" can refer to. It's not that I see anything objectionable > > to this -- indeed, it's expressively a good thing -- but I don't > > understand the basis for the claim about PA me . > > Well, for one thing, you can't quantify three of something that has one > referent. That's as nonsensical as {ci le pa gerku}. > > And where does the idea that {loi vo nanmu} has one referent come from? When I wrote that, I was thinking that the single referent was a group of four men. But xorxes then explained that it fact there is an indefinite number of referents (each of which is a group of four men). I had been erroneously thinking that {loi vo nanmu} was analogical to {lo vo nanmu} rather than an abbreviation of {lo gunma be lo vo nanmu}. > Is that the "Mr. Rabbit" (or "Mr. Man" in this case) concept that I've > never believed in? No. (But what does 'believing in a concept' mean, anyway?) --And.