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

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:46 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> The problems with counting and so on which arise when we mix kinds and
> instances could be rectified by simply declaring that {da} and
> {[quantifier] [selbri]} never get kinds - i.e. the corresponding
> variables are over 'mundane' singular objects (AT minus K, in
> Chierchia's notation).

What would you then say of these:

    ro klesi be lo gerku cu gerku

    lo xanto cu bramau ro drata ke tumla danlu

    lo remna cu se tuple re da

> I suggested something like this before, and I think you complained that
> we shouldn't be separating out kinds from mundanes... but since
> Chierchia does it, I feel licensed to push again for an explanation of
> what would go so wrong if we did separate them out.

I see no major problem in separating the metalinguistic construct
"kind", as defined for example by Chierchia, for contexts in which
they appear together with their manifestations. My only problem would
be if you forbid saying things like (quote) "My two favourite things
are to cycle and to go to the cinema alone", i.e. if you don't allow
"to cycle" and "to go to the cinema alone" to count as things in any
context. Whether you want to call them kinds or something else
metalinguistically, it doesn't much matter.

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.