From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Thu Sep 06 17:56:48 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 7 Sep 2001 00:56:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 94899 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2001 00:50:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Sep 2001 00:50:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta07-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.47) by mta3 with SMTP; 7 Sep 2001 00:50:07 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.88.88]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010907005005.NZED710.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 01:50:05 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] the set of answers Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 01:49:22 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <158.485568.28c2c162@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" pc: > jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > {lo'i du'u makau klama le zarci} is the set {tu'o du'u la djan klama > le zarci; tu'o du'u la meris klama le zarci; tu'o du'u la djan e > la meris klama le zarci; tu'o du'u la djan enai la meris klama le > zarci; noda klama le zarci; ... } > > I know that And has come up with some suggestion about what {tu'o} means. It was Jorge in response to me for the umpteenth time expressing my annoyance about having to choose a gadri and/or quantifier for inherently (noncontingently) singleton categories. So that's what I see {tu'o} as for -- for things that in any possible world there can be only one of. {tu'o} doesn't solve the annoyance of having to *use* a gadri/quantifier, but at least it removes the annoyance of having to vacuously *choose* one. > I have not read it carefully but did not find what I understood of it on skim > either plausible or even intelligible within the context of standard > Lojban. > But then, it is 1) unlikely that anyhting that gets labelled as "null > operand/non-specific/elliptical number" is going to be intelligible or > plausible and 2) clear that {tu'o} should have some use or other, vaguel as a > quantifier. I just don't understand what And's version is nor how it is > justified. See above. I'm not sure which messages you have or haven't read, but there was agreement that {tu'o} couldn't sensically mean both "null operand" and "non-specific/elliptical number", and John opined that it should mean only "null operand". I agree with him. --And.