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

[John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>]

Sorry; reading too much history into your remarks. So, we are on the same page 
about {lo broda}, though maybe not on the same paragraph.  I am not sure about 
kinds, which I would as soon leave out of the discussion, unless they mean -- as 
they seem to in Chierchia et al -- maximal sets of objects satisfying a 
predicate in a universe.  Exactly how such things satisfy a predicate will 
depend on what kind of thing it is and what the predicate is and, at least 
occasionally, what we want to say.  So, again we are apparently on the same 
paragraph even, though the various terminologies make it seem that there are big 
differences.
As noted, I find the situation of kinds and persons exactly opposite: I cannot 
imagine a domain of discourse that had kinds but no manifestations (or, indeed, 
any serious distinction between the two) but a domain that contained John and no 
John segments seems not only possible but usual (just as I can talk about 
rhinoceroses without having rhinoceros hearts in my universe).  The kind seems a 
sort of frill, as do the segments: the one a fancy way to talk about all of them 
at once, the other a fancy way to do tensed sentences.  I don't see brodas as 
derivative from brodakind and I don't see John as the sum of all his parts, in 
any sense.




----- Original Message ----
From: Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, September 20, 2011 5:29:08 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural 
variable

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.

-- 
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.