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

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

Once you have a plurality, you can slice and dice any which way.
Well, let's see.  I can like unicorns, even if there are not any (although, in 
Lojban, if I say that in a natural way, I seem to guarantee that there are some, 
albeit nonexistent), so maybe you are right and this is about properties.  I 
would be inclined, however, to think it was rather a more general intensional 
notion, which might amount to a property, but maybe also an event, depending on 
what one likes about them -- even a sensation.  So, I would probably write {mi 
nelci tu'a lo cinfo} (I am away from my tables right now, so I may have the 
cmavo wrong, but it is around there somewhere.


----- Original Message ----
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, October 17, 2011 9:43:26 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural 
variable

* Monday, 2011-10-17 at 07:30 -0700 - John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>:

> But "I like lions" has nothing to do with lionness, just lions.

What does it have to do with any lions? You can like lions without
liking (even potentially) any 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).

Why would plural reference lead you to using disjunctive predication?

> 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>:
> > > (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.