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

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

OK, So you've got philosophers pegged.  But from a more linguistic or Lojbanic pov, a each lion cinfos where it zvatis, and so bunch of lions cinfos manywhere, since the bunch cinfos only conjunctively.  

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 31, 2011, at 9:46, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>> * Sunday, 2011-10-30 at 19:00 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
>>> On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>>>> That does raise (again) the possibly important question of where it is
>>>> that a bunch of lions cinfos.
>>>> 
>>>> Obvious answers:
>>>> (i) everywhere at least one of them zvatis;
>>>> (ii) at some specificish locale, such as their centre of mass;
>>>> (iii) everywhere.
>>>> 
>>>> (ii) is icky.
>>> 
>>> It could also be the minimum volume that contains them all,
>> 
>> Isn't that the same as (i)?
> 
> I took (i) to mean they were manywhere (there and there and there and
> there and ...), while (ii) meant they were just onewhere (only there).
> I was suggesting that (ii) could possibly be one big volume-like there
> rather than a small point-like there.
> 
> 
>>> Where would you say you remna? Is there a single right answer?
>> 
>> Unless we're working with (iii), my answer would be: where I am. If you
>> asked me {xu do bu'u ti remna}, I'd probably say {go'i} if you were
>> pointing at my spleen, but {na go'i} if you were pointing at one of my
>> hairs, but would leave it to philosophers to debate whether I'm right or
>> not.
> 
> If I were pointing at your spleen, I should probably say "bu'u ta". If
> I were pointing at the room we were both in, I could say "bu'u ti". I
> think it would generally make more sense to me to say "do zvati lo vi
> kumfa" than "do zvati lo betfu be do".
> 
> But I agree it is a matter better left to philosophers, which is to
> say that there is no single right answer. Same thing would happen if I
> asked you when you remna. Did you remna yesterday and remna again
> today, or is there just one long when that you remna in?
> 
>> Anyway, whatever the precise answer, if we work with anything like (i)
>> or (iii) it seems that actually {lo vi cinfo} only works if the
>> tautology is
>>    {ro lo vi cinfo cu vi cinfo}
>> and not just
>>    {lo vi cinfo cu vi cinfo} ,
>> because the second holds even if all but one of the lions is off
>> in africa (or, assuming possible worlds are handled analogously, are
>> space-lions from Quuxkl).
> 
> I obviously would say that the tautology is "lo vi cinfo cu vi cinfo",
> which of course does not exclude the (non-tautological) possibility
> that "lo vi cinfo cu vu ji'a cinfo".
> 
> 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.