[lojban] Re: A Proposed Explanation of {gunma}

[Jorge Llambías <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

On 12/15/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Looking over that chapter again, I note that
> McKay is doing a very different thing there.  He
> is arguing that plural quantification/reference
> cannot be reduced to any singularist version and
> that it does not require a singularist
> underpinning of any sort.  All of which I agree
> with; I am only saying that there are singularist
> systems that are formally indistinguishable from
> plural reference/quantification.

Isn't that contradictory? If plural reference cannot be reduced
to any singularist version, how can it be equivalent to some
singularist system?

 After all,
> bunch theory does not *say* there is a bunch that
> so and so, it just says that something is so and
> so, leaving it open what that something is/are:
> aF & bF & cF => [Ed]d-F regardless. Put another
> way, McKay uses "plurality" and "plurals" in ways
> that are to the naked eye not different from the
> way a singularist uses "set" or "fusion" and this
> is even more true in the formalism.
>
>
> 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.
>
>


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.