| In a message dated 5/31/2001 6:30:50 PM Central Daylight Time,
jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: I'm not quite sure what my suggestions are yet, I'm just exploring . Well, as noted, I am not too sure about the general usefulness of any sets at all, but given there are some to be spoken of, we would want to be able to do both of these. <>I'm >not sure, by the way, that {lu'i ro loi broda} is well-formed: It is grammatical. We have to decide whether we want to give it any meaning or not.> OK, so we can put a non-fractional quantifier in front of {loi}, with as yet undefined sense. <One possibility is for {ro loi broda} to mean "each mass of broda". Another possibility is that it is meaningless, another that it means "the one mass of all broda", same as {piro loi broda}.> The first sounds plausible and maybe useful, we probably won't stick with the second. The third sounds like trouble <No doubt about lu'i ro lo broda = lo'i broda. If lu'i piro loi broda is also that, we don't have a way of talking of sets whose members are masses. Not that it would be a problem for me in any case. I only need {lu'a} and {lu'o} an these don't have the problems that sets have.> I suppose you mean "don't NOW have any way" since you were just proposing a way above. We pretty certainly don't have one now and I can imagine wanting one (without going through {gunma}), except that I want to insist that masses aren't things but rather that mass descriptions are ways of talking about things (set descriptions, too, for that matter) <It seems useful to distinguish {lu'o so'i lo broda}, a mass of many broda, from {lu'o so'u lo broda}, a mass of a few broda, and so on.> As noted, I would like to see those be just the massification of {so'i lo broda}, that is, not an unspecified mass of many broda but a mass of many unspecifed broda. I,m not sure I can make this work, what with quantifiers and all. |