Re: quantifiers on sumti - late response

["Dylan P. Thurston" <dpt@math.harvard.edu>]

mi joi la and. joi la xorxes. cusku di'e
 > > > > So what is "a set of boxes"? {pisuho lohi tanxe}?
 > > > That works, I think.  How about {lo se cmima be lo tanxe} or {lo'i
 > > > su'o lo tanxe}?
 > > Ah, yes. {lohi suo tanxe}.
 >
 > Well, not really. I'm not 100 percent sure, but I think {lo'i} works
 > like {lo}, that means "the set of all boxes, of which there are at
 > least one". The inner quantifier of {lo'i} is always equivalent to {ro}.

The inner quantifier is {ro} unless it's changed, no?  By putting in
{su'o}, you explicitly say it's not "the one and only set", but some
piece of that set.

 > > ...
 > > Ah. So you'd say {suo ci da stedu loe remna} is true. I can see why.
 > > Weird. If you go off an find every human head, you find they each
 > > belong to loe remna. But if you encounter loe remna you find that
 > > Signor(a) Remna has one head. Cor.
 >
 > But you never encounter {lo'e remna}. Or rather, you can't conclude
 > anything about {lo'e} remna from properties of the one you encounter.
 > Let me try to be more clear:
 > ...

Yes, this is quite true, but not relevant.  And's point is that the
properties of {lo'e remna}, unlike the properties of {lo'i} or {loi},
are of the same type as the properties of {lo remna}; in particular,
since practically all {remna} have exactly one {stedu}, it should be
true that {pa da stedu lo'e remna}.  Remember, it's a myopic singular.
(And yes, {da} would probably be {lo'e stedu}, but you don't need to
specify it.)

 > ...
 > > ... But I would like to know how to
 > > say loe remna has exactly one head, two arms, two legs.
 >
 > It doesn't, in my opinion, because {lo'e remna} is not a sumti with
 > a fixed referent, to which you can give properties, much like
 > {pa remna} is not a sumti with a fixed referent to which you can give
 > properties. Or rather, you could put {lo'e remna} in the x1 of
 > a selbri meaning {x1 has exactly one head}, but you couldn't relate
 > it with some one thing by the relationship {stedu}.

Huh?  How else would you say "x1 has exactly one head"?

 > ...
 > I've changed my view of the world back and forth many times since
 > I started learning Lojban, and I haven't settled on one yet.

Gosh.  I'm looking forward to this.

 > > > (In fact, I'm tempted to write {ta tanxe reno lo'e plise} for
 > > > "that's a box for twenty apples", i.e. a twenty-apple box, not
 > > > necessarily for any particular twenty apples.)
 > >
 > > Ooh no - please - rather {ta tanxe loe re no mei plise}.
 >
 > Ok, but make it {lo'e plise renomei}, which is slightly less
 > ambiguous. How do you like {lo'e reno plise}?

{ta tanxe lo'e reno plise} sounds to me like it's a box that can hold
twenty different apples (not necessarily at the same time), rather
than a typical mass of twenty apples.  Is this a silly interpretation?

mu'o mi'e. dilyn.