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

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> * Sunday, 2011-11-06 at 12:56 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
>> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 12:31 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>> > * Saturday, 2011-11-05 at 22:28 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
>> >>
>> >> What about "berets and bowler hats are different types of hats"?
>> >> "lo ranmapku jo'u lo bolmapku cu ficysi'u lo ka klesi lo mapku"
>> >
>> > Again we could avoid kinds, and just say {su'o da ranmapku .o nai
>> > bolmapku}.
>>
>> (You need "gi'o" rather than ".o"
>
> (oops)
>
>> ) That says something quite different though. It doesn't even preclude
>> the possibility that every ranmapku is bolmapku as long as there is
>> one bolmapku that is not ranmapku.
>
> Does ficysi'u?

Hmm... I think so, yes.

If you are quantifying over mundane hats, then saying that at least
one of them is either a beret or a bowler but not both is not much
like saying that berets and bowler hats are different kinds of hats. I
think you would need to say that everything is either a beret, a
bowler, or neither. (And the double exclusive or is hard!)

And even so, mere set disjointness doesn't seem to get at the heart of
the matter, which is probably in the x3 of klesi:

"lo ranmapku jo'u lo bolmapku cu ficysi'u lo ka ce'u klesi lo mapku ma kau"

>> Why is beret - hat - garment artificial?
>
> But they're all on the same level, no?

As kinds? A beret is a kind of hat, and a hat is a kind of garment.

> It's true that it isn't clear what a valsi is. I do believe that this
> should be clarified. My take would be that a valsi is an abstract
> entity, as are jufras and selskus; that {zo mupli} has a single
> referent, like (qkauless) {lo ka broda}; and that what these pixels
> glowing on your monitor are doing is sinxaing valsis. The valsis
> themselves may sinxa concepts, and we can skip a level and say that the
> pixels sinxa the concepts.
>
> I suppose you would have the pixel-valsis sinxaing the abstract-valsis,
> but also valsiing whatever it is the abstract-valsis valsi?

I would want to say "mi kancu lo valsi poi dei vasru ku'o li pa pa".

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.