la .pycyn. cu cusku di'e
As noted, the problem remains whatever the universe assigns to 'broda'. If every part of each broda is a broda, then there are no (even relative) individuals to enumerate. If there are ultimate brodas then the full generality which 'lo' was to represent is unrealized and we are thrown back into muddled world of Mr. Broda and Brodatude and myopic singulars, with even less support than we had before.
But not every part of each broda is a broda in every universe, and neither do all universes consider only full broda as a broda. It always depends on which differentiation criteria are applied to the world in each situation.
Mr. Broda is just one way of slicing up the world into referents. There, all broda are considered one and the same (or you could say there is only one broda and then you get to myopic singulars).
In another universe, all parts of a missing body could be considered referents of the missing John Smith which police are trying to find.
In yet another universe, what you would think of as being one thing can be split into several separated only by their position in time. E.g. each night's moon is a new one. "tonight's moon is prettier than last night's moon".
Each situation warrants a new set of differentiation criteria and based on those we get different possible referents which not only {lo} can refer to, but also {le} and {la} and {da}.
mi'e la selpa'i mu'o -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.