In a message dated 7/5/2002 3:00:58 AM Central Daylight Time, gordon.dyke@bluewin.ch writes:>The mei solution works because we're talking about pairs of >sumti, I disagree with the "in which case le remei would refer to two sumti". This is not the default position and, of course, makes no sense in the context (expressions don't get tired). Adding {la'e} only makes sense if what is described next is a sign of some sort; {le remei} might be a sign, but most likely is not -- it could be a dog and a cat, for current example. <I can't now work out what {le remei} actually means. How would it differ from {lei remei}? Could anyone share their views on which of these make sense and what they mean? le remei le se remei lei remei lei se remei> le remei = the massification(s) of some pair of things I have in mind (refers to mass(es) of things) le se remei = the set(s) of two things I have in mind as massified (refers to two membered sets) lei remei = the mass of pair masses I have in mind (refers to a mass of masses of things -- which I think collapses to a mass of things) lei se remai = the masses of two-sets I have in mind as massified. (refers to a mass of sets, which does not collapse). <It is, however likely that {lu'o le gerku .e le mlatu cu tatpi} doesn't mean that all of them are tired. Otherwise an officer telling his superior "lei nanmu cu tatpi" would not be telling the truth.> I take this as another way of saying that "tired" spreads over masses from individuals in some special way. How? <I think this is one place where the book is right in the wrong way. The implicit quantifiers on lei don't work as they should. A mass, considered as a mass, is either tired or isn't (otherwise masses are as useful as sets). We can't have a situation where {lei nanmu cu tatpi .ije naku lei nanmu cu tatpi} is true.> See comments elsewhere to xorxes treatment of this. Tautologies don't help clarify issues. <- How do we refer to the referents of the sumtis of the last sentence? (I think some sort of prosumti should be experimented with) - How do we use {remei} to refer to {le gerku .e le mlatu} in the context {.i pa gerku .i pa mlatu .i le gerku cu jersi le mlatu}> I think the answer to the second question is just "we can't with any reasonable assurance of success." If I am wrong on that, then this question reduces to the first one, with viable candidate. <- What do we do about these stupid-mass-things (pe'i la djan cowan po'o ka'e ciksi). It makes no sense to be able to say {loi cmacu cu crinu} because I decided that dying my own hair green wasn't enough.> I think this is pretty well in hand. A better case would be "What is the way that the tiredness of individual brodas affects the tiredness of loi broda?" That is claimed to be special but not yet explained: neither the "all" nor the "only some" explanation seems right to some people. To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. |