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

[Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com>]

I still don't see the problem.  "roses are red" and "red things are roses" both imply that "SOME Xs are Y" since after all, there are yellow roses and red fire trucks.

On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 7:52 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:

* Sunday, 2011-10-16 at 18:41 -0400 - Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com>:

> On Oct 16, 2011 6:23 PM, "Martin Bays" <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > * Saturday, 2011-10-15 at 19:22 -0400 - Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>:
> > > So am I taking "{lo} -> {zo'e noi}" too literally?
> >
> > Actually, what do you make of this argument for not taking it too
> > literally:
> >
> > {lo rozgu cu xunre}
> >    == {zo'e noi rozgu cu xunre}
> >    == {zo'e rozgu gi'e xunre}
> >    == {zo'e xunre gi'e rozgu}
> >    == {zo'e noi xunre cu rozgu}
> >    == {lo xunre cu rozgu}
>
> What's wrong with that?  The rose is a red thing.  The red thing is a rose.
> I don't see what the problem is

Those two sentences aren't generally considered equivalent in english.

Moreover, xorxes would give "roses are red" and "red things are roses"
as possible translations. Those are even more clearly non-equivalent.

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.