* Monday, 2011-10-17 at 09:08 -0700 - John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
> Once you have a plurality, you can slice and dice any which way.
Ah, you just mean that there are predicates like {ce'u nibli ko'a},
which is probably "upwards distributive" - true of a plurality iff of
some subplurality? That's harmless enough.
> 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.
Yes, {mi nelci lo ka cinfo} is only getting at one of the meanings of "I
like lions". It could also mean e.g. mi nelci lo ka nu citka lo cinfo.
> 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.
{tu'a} is the right cmavo, but I don't think this works if we're
(as I assume we are for the nonce) disallowing kind interpretations of
{lo} - it would have to mean that I like some abstraction to do with
some/the lions. Not much use for talking about lions in general; even
less for talking about unicorns in general. I fear it would have to be
{mi nelci tu'o lo ka cinfo}.
Martin
> ----- 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.
>
Attachment:
pgps8JkpOSwgo.pgp
Description: PGP signature