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

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 10:16 AM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Somebody (the layered responses without summaries makes it difficult to
> figure out who is advocating what) holds that, in a given conversation,  {cinfo}
> (for example) may mean any of at least: Lion, lions, lion, lion segments
> (temporally defined), lion kinds, lionness.

I think everybody is in agremment that "lo ka cinfo na cinfo" (and
also that "lo'i cinfo na cinfo", although you don't mention that one).

On the other hand, I am in favor of redefining some predicates that
explicitly call for "lo ka cinfo" or for "lo'i cinfo" for some of
their arguments in such a way that they should call for "lo cinfo"
instead. But that's a redefinition of the predicate, not an
implication that "lo ka cinfo cu cinfo" or that "lo'i cinfo cu 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.