Re: [lojban] set mechanics

[John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>]

Robin Lee Powell wrote:


> Does anyone interpret:
>
> mi ce do ku'a na'e bo do
>
> as resulting in anything other than the set with the single element
> 'mi'?

Strictly, "na'ebo do" means "something other than you", and what it
refers to is context-sensitive.   In this context, it would be
legitimate to read it as "the set complement of {you}", but that
is not the only conceivable reading.  The set consisting of
John and someone other than Mary need not be the union of {John}
and ~{Mary}.

> mi ce do goi ko'a
>
> binds ko'a to do.  Does anyone have an elegant way to bind ko'a to the
> two element set mi ce do?  

This is what "vu'o" is for -- binding a relative clause/phrase to a
compound sumti.

--
There is / one art             || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
no more / no less              || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things             || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness           \\ -- Piet Hein