[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Re: Holiday Present from the BPFK: The gadri Proposal Has Been Completed
xorxes:
> --- And Rosta wrote:
> > > When there is reference to a group, (for example {loi bakni},
> > > and {lo gunma be lo bakni}) then you need to use {lu'a} or
> > > {lo cmima be} in order to get to the members of the group, and
> > > then quantify. A direct quantifier in this case will quantify
> > > over groups, because the referents of those sumti are the groups,
> > > not the members.
> >
> > Presumably lu'a or cmima are needed to say "3 members of lo vo
> > nanmu", too, right?
>
> No, {lo vo nanmu} does not refer to a group, it refers to four men,
> as individuals, the distinction matters. That doesn't mean that what
> we claim about them is distributive. The idea of plural reference
> is mostly taken from a paper by Thomas McKay, which can be
> read here: http://philosophy.syr.edu/
I've given the first 3 chapters a hurried but not perfunctory reading,
& find none of his arguments against singularism in the least
persuasive. Nor do I see why the distinction matters. Are the
clinching arguments to be found later on? [I have also given a very
hurried read through what I could find on the twiki; I didn't
see anything explanatory there, but maybe I missed it.]
But at any rate, I could rephrase my questiion: To say "3 of the-
individuals-among lo vo nanmu", one would need to use a predicate
meaning "is-an-individual-among" -- is that right? And "ci lo vo
nanmu" is "three quartets of men"?
--And.