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

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 11:30 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> * Sunday, 2011-11-06 at 22:48 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
>>
>> 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.

That's true if you allow any which property to define a kind. You can
do that, of course, but we normally only use "reasonable" properties
to define kinds.

Every kind of X is an example of X, but the converse is less
definitely true. Every example of X may eventually be a kind of X, if
you are lax enough on what properties you allow to define kinds.

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.