Le vendredi 7 février 2014 20:56:57 UTC+9, selpa'i a écrit :
la .guskant. cu cusku di'e
> The way I see it, any {lo broda} is an individual (or an
> individual-collection). It doesn't matter what {broda} is. What kind of
> individuals there are in {lo broda} depends on {broda}, but they are
> still always individuals. There is no difference between {lo ckafi} and
> {lo prenu} in terms of individualness.
>
>
>
> Do you still mean
> "SUMTI is individual" =ca'e {RO DA poi ke'a me SUMTI zo'u SUMTI me DA}
> with the term "individual"?
>
> If so, keeping {lo broda} to be individual requires attentiveness on the
> universe of discourse, and reduces the flexibility of the language.
Note that I said "is an individual or an individual-collection". That
is, {lo broda} can refer to one individual or to multiple individuals,
but we are always dealing in terms of individuals. It doesn't mean that
{lo broda} must be singular, it only means that whether or not it is
plural, the only referents it has are individuals.
OK, now I understand what you meant.
However, I don't agree to calling {lo broda} "an individual" or "a collection of individual" for two reasons.
1. There is no guarantee that "something in a domain of plural variable, saying nothing about collectivity/distributivity (SDPV)" is always "an individual" or "a collection of individual". An individual is only a special case of SDPV. Lojban should not force a speaker to have an individual of {lo sidbo}, for example, in the universe of discourse. Regarding SDPV as "an individual" or "a collection of individual" is atomism, and should not be forced by the language.
2. Calling {lo broda} "an individual" or "a collection of individual" may let a beginner think of set theory. In order to make clear that the concept of SDPV is completely different from that of a set, such a risk should be avoided.