* Sunday, 2011-11-06 at 17:15 -0300 - 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:
> >> 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!)
Hmm? Why not just {no da ranmapku gi'e bolmapku}?
> 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"
Yes, good. So I'd want to add three characters:
{lo ranmaplei jo'u lo bolmaplei cu ficysi'u lo ka ce'u klesi lo maplei 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.
I'm only seeing two levels there - one containing berets and hats, and
one containing kinds of hat and kinds 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".
Well, I would probably be pernickety and demand {valsi nunsku} in place
of {valsi}.
This does not give you licence to call me pernickety when I demand
{mapku klesi} ;)
Martin
Attachment:
pgpM8wFp5Q8mX.pgp
Description: PGP signature