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

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> * Sunday, 2011-11-06 at 19:42 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
>>
>> lo vi ranmapku cu mupli lo ranmapku noi mupli lo mapku noi mupli lo taxfu
>>
>> But I admit I became lost as to what we are after here.
>
> Assuming I'm guessing correctly what your various {lo} phrases are meant
> to refer to, that's only two levels in the sense I mean 'level'.
>
> "Some hats here are examples of Berets, which is an example* of Hats,
> which is an example* of Garments"?

(I avoid translating "lo" as "some". A bare plural, "the", or
sometimes "a" are all better. And together with "vi", "this" or
"these".)

So in more idiomatic English:

"This beret is an example of a beret, which is an example of a hat,
which is an example of a garment."

> You could use {klesi} for 'example*', so there's no level-crossing.

In my view, the x1 of klesi is at a different level than the x2, as in
mupli, and as in krefu.

The difference between mupli and klesi seems to be that there may be
many equivalent mupli for the same se mupli, but two klesi of one se
klesi are not equivalent. Or something like that.

> Beret is a subclass of Hat, not an instance.

I would hazard to say that "ro klesi be ko'a cu mupli ko'a".

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.