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

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> Is a Blobist allowed to consider quanta? Sounds like heresy to me!

We're allowed to consider everything and anything. :)

> But I have to ask the same question you asked me when I suggested
> {dacti} for this: why couldn't that be interpreted as a *kind* of
> hat-quantum? And if it can, isn't a beret-quantum a kind of hat-quantum?

It can. With "kantu" we just preclude the possibility that we are
considering the beret, the bowler hat, the baseball cap and so on as
the individuals, and that may be all we need to avoid confusion.

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.