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

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

It's not in the quantifier, but in the predicate, "a quantity of water".  It is sometimes covert; we don't define {gerku} as "a body of dog".  As I have said, there are a raft of problems here and no consistent solution for them.  But there has also not been a discussion of them for a long time and it appears that over that time, folks have wandered off in a variety of directions without considering the consequences.  So, it would be nice to take up these issues one at a time (insofar as that is possible) and try again to settle them.

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 22, 2011, at 18:13, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 11:30 PM, John E. Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>  But a Classifier that is only implicit, never overt, is somewhat suspect linguistically.  And that view does go against 55 years of history (with occasional odd moments).
> 
> So what did you mean when you said that Lojban thinking would take the
> number [of djacu] to be the number of separate puddles or whatever.
> Wouldn't "separate puddles" be an implicit classifier in "ci djacu"?
> 
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
> 
> -- 
> 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.
> 

-- 
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.