From araizen@newmail.net Sat Mar 18 13:22:09 2000 Received: (qmail 17815 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2000 21:22:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 18 Mar 2000 21:22:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO out.newmail.net) (212.150.51.26) by mta1.onelist.com with SMTP; 18 Mar 2000 21:22:29 -0000 Received: from default ([62.0.165.58]) by out.newmail.net ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 23:23:41 +02:00 To: lojban@onelist.com Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 23:25:01 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [lojban] Sets etc. Reply-to: araizen@newmail.net Priority: normal In-reply-to: <20000305001006.17415.qmail@hotmail.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.11) Message-ID: <95345062201@out.newmail.net> X-eGroups-From: "Adam Raizen" From: "Adam Raizen" la xorxes cusku di'e > la adam cusku di'e > li'o > I think I don't have a problem with that. So you'd be > arguing that {le ralju be le'i pano mlatu} could only > be one cat, whereas {le ralju be lei pano mlatu} could > conceivably be a mass of more than one cat, it could > be {lei xa xekri} for instance. Is that right? I don't see why we have to freeze into the definition of ralju that there can be only one for a given group. It sounds like metaphysical bias to me. However "le pa ralju be le'i pano mlatu" could only be one cat, I think, whereas "le pa ralju be lei pano mlatu" could be a mass of more than one cat, in addition to possibly being the ralju of only a part of the mass, for instance the ralju of lei xa xekri. When you use a set, however, it must be the ralju of the entire set. co'o mi'e adam