[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

John E Clifford, On 21/10/2011 16:35:

I don't see why; {djacu} is as quantized as every other Lojban predicate.


You don't agree that half an amount of water is also an amount of water?

--And.





----- Original Message ----
From: And Rosta<and.rosta@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, October 21, 2011 6:52:09 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural
variable

Martin Bays, On 21/10/2011 05:12:

* Thursday, 2011-10-20 at 23:25 -0400 - Pierre Abbat<phma@phma.optus.nu>:


On Thursday 20 October 2011 22:06:58 And Rosta wrote:

When I was last up-to-date with developments, nothing was official, but I
think I can recall the rudiments of our best efforts at that time to
construct a consistent and rational gadri system. As far as I now recall,
"half an apple" would be "lo pi mu plise", while "pi mu lo plise" would be
the "one in every two apples" one.


If "pimu lo plise" means "one in every two apples", then "pa lo plise" should
mean "every apple". I think "lo pimu plise" is "a half apple"


But {lo PA broda cu broda} is meant to be a tautology. Half-apples
aren't apples.


So {lo pi mu plise cu plise} fails that test, but {lo pi mu djacu cu djacu}
passes it.

Following a line of thought that that observation initiates, I note that by the
Goatleg rule, {su'o plise} is okay but {su'o djacu} is not and would instead
have to be {za'u djacu} or {ci'i djacu}.

--And.



--
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.