Re: [lojban] Re: furry species?

[John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>]

Well, individually, no.  However, in the applied
set theory of the sort that Lojban seems to have
assumed for all these years, they may
distributively, i.e, all their members do. Of
course, that theory never got spelled out and now
it seems much less misleading to use at least a
different term from "set" to describe what is
involved, hence "bunch."

--- Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
> lojban-list-request@lojban.org
> with the subject unsubscribe, or go to
> http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
> you're really stuck, send mail to
> secretary@lojban.org for help.
> 
>