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

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

Again, I don't see the problem here; lions are lions and I like them (if I do) 
in one way and they are becoming extinct in another, but they are the same lions 
-- who may also be ruining my garden.


----- Original Message ----
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, October 15, 2011 6:29:57 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural 
variable

* Saturday, 2011-10-15 at 17:32 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:

> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> >
> > Well, liking dogs is quite different from liking Fido, and also
> > different from liking almost all dogs, and from there being a high
> > probability that you would (come to) like a randomly chosen dog you were
> > presented with, and from anything else which reduces to talking about
> > individual dogs. I do think that it would be reasonable to use {nelci}
> > for this concept, but that it should be expressed by {nelci lo ka gerku}
> > rather than {nelci lo gerku}.
> 
> The drawback of that approach is that you cannot combine predications
> that "resolve" differently. You can't say for example "I like lions,
> but they are destroying my garden", not as "mi nelci lo ka cinfo .i
> ku'i ri daspo lo mi purdi" anyway, because presumably you don't mean
> to say that a property is destroying your garden.

Probably I don't, although it arguably it might make some sense to do
so. The crucial thing is just that {lo ka cinfo cu cinfo} is false.

In any case, this drawback seems a rather small one to me.

Martin

-- 
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.