Re: [lojban] Re: furry species?

[Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu>]

On Friday 12 May 2006 09:41, John E Clifford wrote:
> This gets philosophically murky.  A species of
> bears is presumably at least a bunch of bears and
> of course a bunch of bears can have
> (distributively) fur.

I've been thinking of species as sets. Sets don't have fur.

You could say {lo cribe be roda cu se gacri lo kerfa}, but {lo cribe be roda} 
sounds like a bear that belongs to all species of bears at once, which 
doesn't exist. More pedantically, {ro se cribe zo'u lo cribe cu se gacri lo 
kerfa}.

phma