From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sun Sep 01 12:45:55 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_0_1); 1 Sep 2002 19:45:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 84553 invoked from network); 1 Sep 2002 19:45:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Sep 2002 19:45:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.93) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Sep 2002 19:45:54 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 12:45:54 -0700 Received: from 200.69.6.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 01 Sep 2002 19:45:54 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Set stuff Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 19:45:54 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Sep 2002 19:45:54.0760 (UTC) FILETIME=[2F507C80:01C251F0] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.6.2] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la djorden cusku di'e >If I have "le >selcmi", the sumti already refers to a set (individually), right? Yes, "each of the sets I have in mind". >Is it neccesary to use "le'i selcmi"? Or would "le'i selcmi" >actually mean something else? (ba'a: le'i selcmi == piro le'i su'o >selcmi == the whole of the set of some sets?). Right. {le'i selcmi} is the set of the sets (at least one) that I have in mind. >Which leads me to my next question. If the above is correct, is it >better to say something more like: > le'i ro selcmi poi ke'a na cmima ke'a Interesting. {le'i broda poi ke'a brode} should be the set of brodas that are brode, while {le'i broda ku poi ke'a brode} should be the set of brodas which (set) is a brode. So what you have does do what you want. >or even the traji concise: > lo'i selcmi be na'ebo ri There's the problem with {ri} that you mention below, but also even if {ri} did refer to the set, that would be the set of sets that are not its members. Much worse than the original, as every single set is now problematic as to whether it is a member or not. >I'm liking the last one at this point (but not entirely sure if >it's correct use of set operators). Also; I'm not sure if that ri >works properly; I know ri looks back to the first "complete" sumti, >so perhaps that wouldn't work there... Can ya use ke'a in a be? If >so then perhaps > lo'i selcmi be na'ebo ke'a >would fix the ri problem... Anyone have a better suggestion for the >translation? {ke'a} only works within a NOI. Maybe {lo'i ro na cmima be vo'a}. You'd have to read Nick's paper to see whether this works or not... mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com