Le lundi 10 février 2014 00:55:01 UTC+9, selpa'i a écrit :
la .guskant. cu cusku di'e
> Actually, I didn't need {lo mokca} in order to say that any {lo linji}
> are not one or more individuals.
> I mentioned {lo mokca} only for clarifying the structure of {lo linji},
> but it was really unnecessary.
> Only I need to say is that {lo linji xi ny me lo linji xi my} continues
> infinitely in that universe of discourse.
>
> In other words, this is an infinite instance of {lo re prenu cu me lo mu
> prenu}.
I'm not sure I follow.
Let's say the original single line segment L looks like this:
|-----------------------------------------------| <- {lo linji}
L
You seem to be saying that L is not an individual because we can turn it
into multiple smaller line segments A, B, C, like this:
|---------------| |---------------| |---------------|
A B C
Further, you seem to be saying that A, B, and C are all among L. You
also seem to be saying that each of A, B, C are not individuals either,
because we can further split them, like this:
|-------|-------| |-------|-------| |-------|-------|
M N O P Q R
And that M and N are among A, and so on.
Is this what you are saying?
Yes.
I would say that the only line segment that is among L is L itself. A is
not among L, nor are B or C, let alone M, N, O, ...
A, B and C are *part* of L. M is *part* of A.
Such a universe of discourse is of course natural and possible, but the universe of discourse given here is based on another epistemology that {lo linji xi ny cu me lo linji xi my} behaves just like {lo re prenu cu me lo mu prenu}. The only difference is that {lo linji xi my} consists of infinite {lo linji}, while {lo mu prenu} consists of finite {lo prenu}. Such a universe of discourse is also possible under the condition that you don't assert that
RO DA poi ke'a me lo linji zo'u lo linji me DA,
where RO DA is a quantified plural variable.
If you introduce new objects, then you are creating a new universe of
discourse each time, so the original singular {lo linji} is no longer
relevant. It seems like your {me} is jumping across domains.
I did not introduce new objects. those infinite number of {lo linji} were already prepared in the universe of discourse given first.
For example, in the case of finite {lo ci prenu}, let us call the three persons p1, p2, p3. In the universe of discourse. The following sumti are all in the domain of plural variable that are prenu even if you don't mention the sumti:
p1
p2
p3
p1 jo'u p2
p2 jo'u p3
p3 jo'u p1
p1 jo'u p2 jo'u p3
Similarly, the infinite number of {lo linji} were in the domain of plural variable that are linji when the universe of discourse was given first.
Would you say that {lo sakta cu me lo najnimryjisra}? For me it would be
a very definite No.
No, but the current topic is not similar to that but to {lo re prenu cu me lo mu prenu}.