Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 1:19 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As far as I can
> understand, for xorxes {lo broda} refers to broda-kind, a something or other
> (xorxes has always had trouble when we get down to defining it) which has
> individual brodas as manifestations (avatars, etc.).

That's an odd way of stating my position. For me "lo broda" refers to
some thing or things that satisfy the x1 of broda, it wasn't me who
brought up kinds. "lo broda" can only refer to a kind if and only if
that kind satisfies broda (which I expect broda-kind does, but if not,
then not). I also hold that "lo broda" is almost always a good
translation for the English bare plural (but not viceversa). If your
theory says that the English bare plural refers to a kind, then your
theory will also probably say that "lo broda", at least in some cases,
refers to a kind. If you have a different theory for the English bare
plural, you may also perhaps have a different theory for "lo broda".

>  (I have passed over xorxes'
> insistence on bringing in person segments necessarily along with persons and his
> contrarian refusal to have brodas along with broda kind in the universe of a
> discussion).

Again an odd way of presenting what I've been doing, which is merely
bringing up the fruitful analogy that can be observed between
individuals and their stages, and kinds and their manifestations.
Whatever objections are raised against a kind view of "lo" seem to
often be raisable, through that analogy, against ordinary individuals.

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.