Re: selbri as sumti

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

And:
> > I was thinking of it as the time encompassed by all days of a given
> > kind.
> That's okay. I wonder how you'd do "two of the same days of the
> week" (put clumsily) - i.e. 2 Mondays, or 2 Tuesdays. Maybe
>
>    re djedi pe xohu pisuho pa jefydje

Or simply:

     ca pa jefydje ca re djedi

This is not a very general answer to your original question, though.
And I still don't know what is the best definition for {jefydje}.

> > But anyway, with your definition:
> >        mi klama le zarci ca ro jeftu ca lo mintu jefydje cmima
> > {ca lo cmima be lo jefydje poi mintu lei drata}, if you don't want tanru.
>
> I don't see how {mintu lei drata} helps, but I do see how {cmima} helps.

Well {lei drata} helps because it is a singular term. That is a way to avoid
the prenex, by fixing the day that you mean with an in-minder.
Without that, the cmima is selected independently for each week.

> >        mi klama le zarci ca ro cmima be pa mintu jefydje
> > should work. The problem has been kicked to the x2 of mintu,
> > and to make it explicit, we would need to use the prenex, but
> > I believe context does make it clear.
>
> I'll go for
>       pa da poi jefydje zohu mi zarci klama ro cmima be da
   > or,
>       mi zarci klama ro cmima be xohu pa jefydje
> or,
>       mi zarci klama ro luha xohu pa jefydje

I believe you mean {ca ro ...} in all cases. I did think of xo'u
but I didn't want to bring it up :)
Yes, I think it would work but I still don't like xo'u.

> Tho it might be objected that a category is not a set, I think
> I would prefer to interpret {luha} as neutralizing the distinction,
> and favour the last of the three versions.

What is the difference between category and set?

> >        mi citka lo finpe poi cmima lo cizra
> >        mi citka lo cidja poi cmima lo cizra
> >        mi tcidu lo selcku poi cmima lo cizra
>
> Still not quite what I want. I want to say that a class that is
> pisuho of the class of fish/food/books is strange.

Change {lo cizra} to {lo cizra ke finpe klesi pagbu}. I don't think
your problem arises in this case for the reason I gave before: there
are only existential quantifiers, which commute without any problem.

> > roldei:  x1 is a quotidian activity (i.e. it belongs to that
> >  set of quotidian activities that you had defined.)
> I will go for:
>
>    ca le cabdei mi baho gasnu luha lo roldei gihe klesi be
>       ro lohi selzukte be mi
>
> - again, horribly messy.

And not what you want. I'm not even sure it's grammatical. The {gi'e}
falls outside of the {lo}. Besides, you didn't restrict it to the activities
that you do today. You are saying that today you did all your quotidian
activities, including those that don't happen today.

I'd say:

    ca le cabdei mi ba'o gasnu ro lo mi ca roldjeke'u selzukte

where {roldjeke'u} is "x1 is an event that recurs every day"
(note that it is a krefu, not the same identical event but a
repetition of an event.)

The {selzukte} may even be superfluous.

Here we are avoiding your problem simply by defining a lujvo
like "quotidian" that already contains the quantifier.

Jorge