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

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 3:41 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:
> Martin Bays, On 05/11/2011 17:22:
>>
>> If you think there's only one lion but you're not sure, you should just
>> say so.
>
> Okay, but in the case under discussion, you've got something that looks like
> one lion but might be several. The speaker is sure it looks like one lion
> and sure that it mightn't be one. All the available diagnostics point to it
> being one lion, but not enough diagnostics are available. If you were to
> draw it or describe it, it would be like drawing or describing one lion.
> Still, I suppose Ready-Madeism would have to just use {su'o cinfo}.

That reminds me of this:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AtLeastOne.html

(Very nice book the one quoted, BTW.)

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.