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

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> The issue was simply whether, in {lo vofli cipnralbatrossa cu xajmi}, we
> have
> (a) a bunch of things, which is at some time a bunch of flying
> albatrosses
> or (b) a bunch of things each of which are at some time flying
> albatrosses.

I thought you also mentioned (c) a bunch of things such that at some
time for all of them, each of them is a flying albatross.

But if you are going to introduce time in a sentence that doesn't
necessarily bring it up, shouldn't you also consider space?

(d) a bunch of things which is at some point in space a bunch of
flying albatrosses
(e) a bunch of things each of which is a flying albatross at some point in space
(f) a bunch of things such that at some point in space each of them is
a flying albatross

Arguably nothing could be an albatross at a single point in space, but
by the same token nothing could be flying at a single point in time.

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.