From lojban-out@lojban.org Fri May 19 16:28:44 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 35904 invoked from network); 19 May 2006 23:28:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.172) by m21.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 May 2006 23:28:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 May 2006 23:28:43 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FhEOg-0004TY-SD for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 19 May 2006 16:28:42 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FhEOB-0004T8-RR; Fri, 19 May 2006 16:28:14 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 19 May 2006 16:28:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FhENl-0004Sf-9p for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 19 May 2006 16:27:45 -0700 Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com ([64.233.162.201]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FhENg-0004ST-O2 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 19 May 2006 16:27:45 -0700 Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id f1so808701nzc for ; Fri, 19 May 2006 16:27:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.42.17 with SMTP id p17mr1946767nzp; Fri, 19 May 2006 16:27:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.153.14 with HTTP; Fri, 19 May 2006 16:27:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 17:27:35 -0600 In-Reply-To: <20060519133814.95648.qmail@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060519133814.95648.qmail@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11633 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: maxim.katcharov@gmail.com X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0 X-eGroups-From: "Maxim Katcharov" From: "Maxim Katcharov" Reply-To: maxim.katcharov@gmail.com Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=Nip6ErH_YJ1kovYU7uwOw7icaoYnKXMMp9bwPnQDbpld6eqHoA X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 26051 On 5/19/06, John E Clifford wrote: > > > --- Maxim Katcharov > wrote: > > > > > > On 5/18/06, Jorge Llambías > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > {mu L_ ro cribe cu ba zasti} > > > > > > Five bears, out of all hypothetical > > future bears, will exist in the future. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, that's "out of all bears, exactly > > five will exist (at some > > > > > unspecified time > > > > > in the future)". > > > > > > > > "[out of] all bears" amounts to my "[out > > of] the set of all > > > > hypothetical/possible permutations of > > bears". Does this clarify how > > > > I'm using this > > 'hypothetical-all-permutiation set'? Or do you > > disagree > > > > with this? > > > > > > > > If you disagree, then how are you using > > "[out of] all bears" in that > > > > above sentance? > > > > > > I was using it in my sense, i.e. "out of all > > things that count as bears". > > > > What counts as bears? Bears that will actually > > exist in the future? > > Surely not, consider: > > > > {mu L_ ro cribe cu ba zasti} > > > > "five of all-bears-such-that(-will)-exist will > > exist"? That wouldn't > > say anything at all. You need a hypothetical > > mega-set so that it > > becomes comprehensible: "five of > > all-hypothetical-future-bears will > > exist". > > > > > > You don't mean "(out of) the set of all > > bears that > > > > will exist", because that wouldn't work. > > > > > > No. But notice all the different things it > > could still mean: > > > > > > ze'e ba ku mu cribe su'o roi ku zasti > > > From here to eternity, exactly five bears > > will be such that each at least > > > at one time exists. > > > > > > ze'e ba ku mu cribe ro roi ku zasti > > > From here to eternity, exactly five bears > > will be such that each at every > > > time exists. > > > > > > ze'e ba ku su'o roi ku mu cribe zasti > > > From here to eternity, there will be at > > least one time when exactly five > > > bears exist. > > > > > > ze'e ba ku ro roi ku mu cribe zasti > > > From here to eternity, every time time > > will be such that exactly five > > > bears will exist at that time. > > > > > > All say different things. And that's just > > with {ro roi} and {su'o roi}. > > > > I don't see what this says regarding the > > impossibility of using this mega-set. > > > > To me 1 & 3 and 2 & 4 look identical in terms > > of final meaning: > > > > {ze'e ba ku mu cribe su'o roi ku zasti} > > > > "in-all-of future, 5 of some set of bears, will > > at some points exist" > > > > {ze'e ba ku su'o roi ku mu cribe cu zasti} > > > > "in-all-of future will at some points exist 5 > > of some set of bears" > > Not the same at all. One says that for each of > five bears there will be a time that it exists; > the other says that there is a time when all five > of these bears exist together. > I should have a better look at the CLL. I was rather certain that it said that the placement of those when not as an inner, and when using ku made changes only to emphasis, and not to meaning. To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.