Re: [lojban] groupyness in definitions

It can, but xorxes point' was that "roxy.xipa" is a single numeric string, all-X(1) (remember that "paxy." -> "1X" is considered a number, and can do all things that numbers do (quantify sumti, etc.)). Since you want to make this two different "words" you have to end the quantifier part with a boi, "ro boi xy xi pa", the same as you have to do if you want to say, for example, "xy boi zy darxi" if you mean "X hits Z", and not "xy zy darxi" ("XZ hits")

(Of course, jboski/genrei chokes on "xy xi pa" for reasons unknown to me, but there is nothing wrong with it grammatically

--gejyspa

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:

Sorry, for some reason I was thinking that xyxipa worked like "broda"
and could work in tanru and whatnot. Everywhere where selkik was
using {me} I intended it that way.

And yeah, now that I think of it, I guess I would agree that {lo se
vasru no'u la'oi m&ms cu vrici lo ka skari} even though some of the
m&ms will certainly have the same color as others in the same bag.

2011/7/23 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:

> On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I was thinking about how one would define "vrici" in lojban (I've since
>> looked it up and xorxes has already done this). But at the time, I came up
>> with something like {ro xyxipa cu frica ro lo drata xyxipa lo ka xyxire}.
>
> You have three sumti there: "ro xyxipa", "ro lo drata", "xyxipa" and a
> fourth incomplete one "lo ka xyxire ... mo".
>
> (Officially "ro xyxipa" is only a number, not a sumti, so the whole
> thing is ungrammatical because of that first part too, but I agree
> that PA and BY should not mix, so I won't take points off for that.)
>
> You seem to be using "xyxipa" as a selbri, but it's a sumti.
>
>> Then I thought some more about it and started wondering if that {drata} was
>> really doing what I wanted it to. If we're talking about {ro lo broda} then
>> we're saying "all of those things that broda which are within the scope of
>> our discourse". But now if I say "ro lo drata broda" that "other"ness is
>> being applied to the "broda" and then we take "all of that".
>> Is there a way to say "all of the things in xyxipa taken as individuals
>> are different from each of (all of the things in the set xyxipa minus itself
>> as individuals) in property xyxire".
>
> ro da poi me xyxipa cu frica ro de poi me xyxipa gi'e drata da ku'o xyxire
>
> I don't think "vrici" requires such total difference among the x1's though.
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
>
>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.