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

[John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>]

There seems to be a certain amount of confusing two (or several) more or less 
formally similar hierarchies here: token-type, kind-exemplar, set-subset (or 
member) and I am unclear which ones we are really talking about (the fact that I 
tend to think of them as in fact the same system probably adds to my confusion 
with people who don't).




----- Original Message ----
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, November 6, 2011 8:30:33 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural 
variable

* Sunday, 2011-11-06 at 22:48 -0300 - 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.

If you're really using klesi there, then I'm reading the english as
"This beret is an example of a type of beret, which is an example of
a type of hat, which is an example of a type of garment"
(I write, as if this disambiguated at all... but hopefully you get what
I mean).

Then I don't think this is an example of level-crossing in the sense
I mean it, i.e. crossing the level doesn't allow you to get from AE to
EA.

"Everyone was wearing a type of beret" ->
"There was a type of beret everyone was wearing - namely a type of hat"
doesn't (meta)work.

> 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.

Not with you there. What's equivalence?

> > Beret is a subclass of Hat, not an instance.
> 
> I would hazard to say that "ro klesi be ko'a cu mupli ko'a".

Weird. What's the relation between klesi and mupli? I was assuming that
ro da poi klesi ku'o ro de zo'u go da de klesi gi ro di da na.a de
mupli.

Martin

-- 
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.