>{le remei} is, in context, exactly equivalent to {lei re danlu} and subject
>to same interpretation -- if not quite exactly the same grammar.
It is not exactly equivalent. {lei re danlu} refers to the two
animals. {le remei} could refer to each of any number of pairs.
If there were two cats and two dogs, for example, {le remei} could
be "each of the two pairs". So even if you accept the inconvenient
implicit quantifier proposed by the Book for {lei}, you don't have
to create a strange interpretation for {le remei}.
Why I said "in context." Of course, in another situation or even with a different interpretive principle, {le remei} might refer to any pair you have in mind, including pairs of pairs and so. But, if you want to insist (as Jordon seems to) that {le remei} means mass of the cat and the dog, then you are stuck with the rest of it. That mass is tired if only the dog (or only the cat) is, just as the mass chases the potman if only the dog does. Masses aren't as useless as sets, but they need to be treated carefully.
<I think that's a big confusion. For starters {gunma} and {remei}
refer to relationships, {le remei} refers to things that go in the
x1 of {remei}. If {le remei} refers to only part of a mass I could
say {mi remei} on the grounds that I am part of a pair. That doesn't
make sense. The quantifier on {lei} cannot get suffused into
the relationship {remei}. One thing has nothing to do with the
other.>
Interesting question. Is {ko'a joi ko'e gunma ko'a ce ko'e ce ko'i} true or not? If true then your remark backs up my point about masses being only partial. If false then, then {loi gerku cu gunma lo'i gerku} is also false, against a number of basic sematic principles. {gunma} means -- like most predicates -- "is A mass" not "The complete mass" from some set. {remei} notice talks about the size of the set underlying, not about completeness either.
| Yahoo! Groups Sponsor |
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.