Well, I am not sure just what the all the complications that MB and xorxes have stirred up are, but, so far as I can follow it, the position seems to be that {zo'e} stands for something I have in mind (or would have, if I thought about it). It is a constant (a different one at each occurrence -- an ongoing problem in Lojban), not a variable and not under any quantifier. Then {lo broda} is that with the additional information that the something is in some way, broda. So, it can refer to anything from a single broda to all brodas, past, present, future, and possible but not actualized. This referent can then be said to have a further property in a variety of ways, mainly to be grokked from context, since the ways to specify them are not ywr well-established. My
understanding is that MB disagrees with this specification of {zo'e} and xorxes with the extrapolation to the referent, but juast why is hard to see.
From: Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, October 6, 2011 12:14:28 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable
Nope. Can't understand it well enough to formulate a question. I'll let you and Martin and Jorge sort it out, and then let Jorge explain it language I can understand (whether or not I will agree with it). As physicist Ernest Rutherford once said: "A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good." Consider me your bartender.
--gejyspa
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 12:04 PM, John E Clifford
<kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
No, just bad typing. I am sure that is not your only question about this discussion; I sure have many.
From: Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, October 6, 2011 8:24:59 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:23 PM, John E. Clifford
<kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
[1] Sincei have doubts about what {zo'e} means, I'm not sure what {mii na klama zo'e} means, but I suppose it must be either "I do not go there", where "there" is some place obvious from context (the value of the Skolem function for the argument mi) or "I don't go anywhere", if it's a particular quantified variable, certainly not you second choice.
With my usual habit of injecting mibzdi nu xajmi into long abstruse threads, I will just ask the following question about your first sentence: zo sincei zo'u se mupli fu'e xu la lyrens.oLIvieis .a la'acu'i ke la melPOmenis .a la talaiys fu'o
--gejyspa
--
--
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.