[lojban] Re: furry species?

[John E Clifford <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

This gets philosophically murky.  A species of
bears is presumably at least a bunch of bears and
of course a bunch of bears can have
(distributively) fur.  "All species of bears"
refers to a bunch of bunches of bears, but a
bunch of bunches reduces to a bunch comprised of
all the members of all the member bunches and, as
such, it can have fur (distributively) as well. 
But this in some sense fails to take species of
bears as species (something more than a bunch of
bears -- just what is unclear).  That is, a
species of bear does not have fur individually,
the way an individual bear does -- or the way a
species is a species.  So the assumption of the
claim is that {ro se cribe cu se gacri lo kerfa}
is to be understood at a point halfway between:
{se gacri lo kerfa} distributes (the point of the
{ro}) over lo se cribe at the level at which "is
a species" does also (the point of the
parenthesis).  Lojban doesn't do this totally
unambiguously as of now, but reason helps a bit
here (not enoguh, apparently, given the othre
discussion currently running).
                                       

--- MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com wrote:

> In a message dated 5/12/2006 4:22:03 AM Central
> Standard Time, 
> ecartis@digitalkingdom.org writes:
> 
> 
> > > As a separate thing, yes. But a kind of
> bear as bear has to go in x1.
> > > For example, I don't think you can say:
> > >
> > >   ro se cribe cu se gacri lo kerfa
> > >   Every species of bear (as a species) is
> covered by fur.
> > >
> > > mu'o mi'e xorxes
> > >
> > 
> > Why not? It seems to parse just fine to me.
> > 
> > mu'omi'e .aleks.
> > 
> 
> Bears have fur.  Species don't have fur.
> 
> stevo
> 



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.