Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: ci lo gerku vs lo ci gerku

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Michael Turniansky
<mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   I don't believe "lo no gerku cu blabi" to be self contradictory/nonsense.
>   Consider a room containing three white dogs -- lo ci gerku cu blabi
>   I take one away -- lo re gerku cu blabi
>   I take another away -- lo pa gerku cu blabi
>   I take the last one away -- lo no gerku cu blabi

But why stop there? You take the one after the last one away -- lo
ni'u pa gerku cu blabi

>   Of course, when I take the last one away, I can equally truthfully say "lo
> no gerku cu xekri".  But in all those cases I can say "ro gerku [poi zvati
> lo kumfa ku'o] cu blabi".  It's jsut a question of whether I am specifying
> their cardinality (ci,re,pa,no) or not (ro).

The point is that there's no "they" to specify the cardinality of when
there are no dogs.

The set of dogs in the room has cardinality zero, but "lo gerku"
refers to dogs, not to a set.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.