Le dimanche 9 février 2014 01:25:00 UTC+9, selpa'i a écrit :
la .guskant. cu cusku di'e
> Moreover, calling something in a domain of plural variable "one or more
> individuals" is misleading for me.
> The term for "something in a domain of plural variable" should be first
> given; after that "individual" is defined using it. The concept
> "individual" is only a special case of "something in a domain of plural
> variable" as defined above.
What would be another case of SDPV that is not an individual? I can't
really make sense of your argument, because for me there are only
individuals and nothing else (DPV or not).
> Something that is broda is not always "one or more individuals" defined
> above: when a universe of discourse is given, there is no need that {lo
> broda} in the universe of discourse is finally separated into individual
> pieces that are members of the universe of discourse.
Please give an example where that does not happen.
Suppose a universe of discourse is given, where {lo linji} is in a domain of plural variable.
In this universe of discourse, {lo linji xi no} can be separated into shorter {lo linji xi pany}:
lo linji xi pano cu me lo linji xi no
i
lo linji xi papa cu me lo linji xi no
i
...
Repeat the separation also for {lo linji xi pany}.
After infinite times of separation, {lo linji} is finally separated into {lo mokca} which is individual:
RO DA poi ke'a me lo mokca zo'u lo mokca me DA
but for any shorter {lo linji}:
naku lo linji me lo mokca
Therefore, any {lo linji} does not satisfy
RO DA poi ke'a me lo linji zo'u lo linji me DA
{lo linji} in this universe of discourse is not an individual.
Please note that another universe of discourse can be given so that {lo linji} is one or more individuals, but the selection of universe of discourse depends on the epistemology of context, and cannot defined by the language.