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

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 2:21 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I have avoided talking about gadri other than {lo} and {le} because I think
> that, until those two are clarified, talk about the others is spinning wheels in
> midair. There is, of course also the problem that no one is sure what "set" and
> "mass" mean at this point.

I don't remember ever being much disagreement about "lo'i". We sort of
take it straight out of set theory.

> I am only mildly surprised that you claim that lionness is not a possible
> meaning for {cinfo}, but the way that you state it fails to convince, since, in
> (lo ka cinof na cinfo} you have set up a context in which lioness is set up in
> opposition to whatever {cinfo} now means.  This does not preclude {lo cinfo},
> for example, referring to lionness in an appropriate situation.  If you hold
> that no situation could be appropriate for that meaning, then I wonder a bit
> about your commitment to blobularism or about what limits you have (unstatedly)
> placed on the blob.

I'd have to see what kind of situation you have in mind.

The reason I think lo ka cinfo and lo'i cinfo are different is that lo
cinfo for me needs tobe able to have skin, to have color, to roar, to
eat, and all other things lions can do, and I can't really picture
sets or properties doing any of these things. It may also very well be
that what you mean by "lionness" is not what I mean by "lo ka 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.