Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Sets and classes

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 16:27:33 EDT

In a message dated 9/22/2002 6:15:58 AM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

<<
> "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.
>>
Only if {selcmi} by itself is genuinely a lujvo and thus open to a new 
reading altogether. Several reasons have been given agains this view. This 
is the first vaguely convincing case in its favor.