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

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 12:46 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>  Is the analogy
> then meant to be:
>
> stages <-~-> manifestations
> individuals <-~-> kinds
> time <-~-> space-time
>
> ?

Right.

> If so, I don't think that really works - it's actual lions which
> satisfy predicates at specific points of space-time, not Lion.

So when you wrote: "Would you even agree that, in the case that we
have a predication
P(k1,k2) about kinds k1, k2 [...]" you didn't really mean to say that
it was k1 and k2 that satisfy the predicate P?

(Minor sidetrack: we don't call the kind in question "Lion" in
English, except maybe in some children story. Normally we call it
"lions", "the lion" or even "a lion". The only examples I can think of
of bare singular count nouns that could be said to name kinds in
English are the names of the months and of the seasons, as in
"September has thirty days", which can be "universally resolved" in
terms of manifestations into "every September has thirty days". Would
you not agree that it can be the kind September that satisfies "...
has thirty days" every year, as well as seeing it as a different
manifestation of September that satisfies it each year?)

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.