Subject: [lojban] Re: Sets and classes

From: "And Rosta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 18:25:25 +0100

Jordan:
> On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 12:17:04PM +0100, And Rosta wrote:
> > Jorge:
> > > la djorden cusku di'e
> > > > > A better gloss for {selcmi} might be "membered thing".
> > > > > Is the empty set a "membered thing"?
> > > >
> > > >It is as much as nonempty sets are.
> > > 
> > > It is as much a "thing with members" as nonempty sets?
> > > 
> > > Only if {selcmi} can mean {selcmi be zi'o}.
> > 
> > "Only if {selcmi} can mean {se cmima be zi'o}". The empty
> > set is definitely not a se cmima. However, it might well
> > be a selcmi.
> 
> selcmi
> se+cmima: set of member: x1 = cmima2 (set of member), x2 = cmima1
> (member)
> 
> Please don't ignore the dictionary. It makes things easier on
> everyone.

I don't know what point you're trying to make. The dictionary hasn't
been published yet, so afaik {selcmi} has no official meaning.

{selcmi} does not necessarily mean {se cmima}.

--And.