Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable

[John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>]

I'm just laying out positions, none of them works for every case, and most fail 
most tests.  Hindu-Buddhist metaphysics is a complicated mess for a reason.



----- Original Message ----
From: Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, September 24, 2011 11:27:30 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural 
variable

On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 10:07 AM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
>   There is an
> intermediate position (Dave Kaplan's?  I think I got it from him or maybe 
Monty
> Furth): that the individuals, even in the depository of entities, come with 
>some
> characteristics (haeceity) but not others.  Of course, what is in that 
haeceity
> is still to be resolved.  So, I am human everywhere and probably introverted 
>and
> pessimistic, but the rest is up for grabs.

But then how do you give a meaningful answer to "if you were an
animal, what animal would you be?"

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.