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

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> * Saturday, 2011-11-05 at 14:03 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
>
>>  My first choice would be to use the same individuation
>> criteria for both "xabju" and "na'e xabju", since they are almost the
>> same predicate.
>
> OK. Presumably if I kept modifying {xabju} and {na'e xabju}, we'd
> eventually find a sentence where you consider the two readings to be
> approximately equally plausible.
>
> I know I've asked such questions before, but please allow me to do it
> again: how would you make it clear that you meant to use the same
> individuation criteria here?

Maybe use the very same predicate: "ro prenu poi xabju", "su'o prenu
poi na'e xabju".

>Or in the beret example, how would you
> express the surprising claim that all french people really do all wear
> the same individual mundane non-kind hat?

I don't know, use whatever predicate ends up being used to mean
"particular individual". Maybe "kantu":
"su'o mapku kantu cu se dasni ro faspre"?

>> But we are not talking about any logical deductions here.
>
> No, just lojbanic deductions. It distresses me that these concepts
> should be so different!

But how could it be otherwise? In most contexts the kind of deductions
that you can make within a given discourse without using knowledge
external to the discourse itself is extremely limited.

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.