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

[And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>]

John E Clifford, On 06/11/2011 22:09:
> So, either the whole notion of having skin, etc. moves up and down with the
> notion of lion,

Yes. This.  In Blobular.

> or Lion is just a bunch of lions viewed in a certain way,
> namely, apparently, without differentiating among the members

That's right. A bunch of lions can be viewed as a bunch of one lion, with skin, four legs, etc.

Maybe in Ready-Made {lo} would be defined as directly meaning bunches of all broda, without the oneness?

> (ultimately
> disjunctively).  I'm perfectly happy to have Lion anything you want it to be
> (within limits, of course -- I don't thing it should be a Zodiac), but tell me
> what it is.  If it is not a bunch then it is an equivalence class, in which case
> why is the set of all lions excluded?  And, of course, this does involve sliding
> what "has a skin" means up and down along with {cinfo}.

--
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.