Subject: Re: [lojban] Sets etc.

From: "Adam Raizen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 23:25:01 +0200

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