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

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 10:42 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jorge Llambías, On 21/10/2011 22:55:
>>
>> Instead of saying that all Lojban predicates are count, I'd rather say
>> that they are all mass, and that quantifiers induce an implicit
>> classifier on them, which is often context dependent.
>
> As usual, I agree with you. So, as John said, adjectival glosses are
> generally preferable, out of context, to nominal ones, e.g. "is human"
> rather than "is a human".

In going from Lojban to English, perhaps. I'm not sure it works the
other way though. "is water" seems like a safer gloss for "djacu" than
"is aqueous", "is aquatic" or "is watery". A bird can be aquatic, but
I don't think that makes it djacu. Similarly lots of things besides
humans can be human. I wouldn't translate "to err is human" as "lo nu
srera cu remna".

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.