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

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

But "I like lions" has nothing to do with lionness, just lions.  As for getting 
rid of disjunctive predication,  if you allow plural reference, you are stuck 
with all the consequences (you are stuck with them even if you use sets to cover 
up the problem in singular reference).  It seems to me ythat the problems arise 
when you get away from basics and try messing around with things like kinds or 
nesses (we have both, of course, but they come in overtly, not sub rosa).




----- Original Message ----
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, October 16, 2011 10:51:48 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural 
variable

* Sunday, 2011-10-16 at 20:09 -0700 - John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>:

> Ahah! "I ate disjunctively of something you like generally" or some such.

Something along those lines, yes.

The context here is that we're trying to see what happens if we throw
kinds out of the window (and also disjunctive predication, in whatever
sense it was there), and try to make do with normal things - including
properties, which I hope can replace pure-kind predications of the "I
like lions" kind (think of it as "I like lionness"). 

Martin

> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
> To: lojban@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Sun, October 16, 2011 8:56:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural 
> variable
> 
> * Sunday, 2011-10-16 at 20:49 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> 
> > On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > >> The drawback of that approach is that you cannot combine predications
> > >> that "resolve" differently.
> > [...]
> > > In any case, this drawback seems a rather small one to me.
> > 
> > It's impotant though. For example, compare:
> > 
> > (1) ca lo prulamnicte mi tavla su'o da poi do nelci ke'a
> > "Last night I talked to someone you like."
> > 
> > (2) ca lo prulamnicte mi citka su'o da poi do nelci ke'a
> > "Last night I ate something you like."
> > 
> > You want to accept (1) but reject (2), even though to me they have the
> > exact same logical structure.

-- 
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.