From mark@kli.org Fri Sep 08 11:59:01 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30200 invoked from network); 8 Sep 2000 18:56:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 8 Sep 2000 18:56:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pi.meson.org) (209.191.39.185) by mta1 with SMTP; 8 Sep 2000 18:56:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 20885 invoked by uid 1000); 8 Sep 2000 18:52:03 -0000 Date: 8 Sep 2000 18:52:03 -0000 Message-ID: <20000908185203.20884.qmail@pi.meson.org> To: lojban@egroups.com In-reply-to: (message from Peter Moulder on 05 Sep 2000 01:11:35 +1100) Subject: Re: [lojban] How many? References: <20000901213925.11683.qmail@pi.meson.org> From: "Mark E. Shoulson" >Cc: lojban@egroups.com >From: Peter Moulder >Date: 05 Sep 2000 01:11:35 +1100 >User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.6 > >"Mark E. Shoulson" writes: > >> xo da se finpe >> >> (or {xo da finpe} for "how many fish are there in the universe?") > >Incidentally, I think that `xy. finpe' does not necessarily imply that >x physically exists in the world; otherwise there would be no way of >talking about non-real fish (because `xy. finpe .ije xy. naku zasti' >would be self-contradictory). > >So `ci'i' (infinity) can be a correct answer to `xo da finpe', at least >if one understands the tense to be merely existential. (My understanding >is that unspecified tenses in Lojban are ambiguous similar to zo'e rather >than existential like DA, in which case `vo' can also be a correct answer >to `xo da finpe'.) Mmm... I'll not get into the question of non-existent fish, but when you consider that Lojban predicates are considered to hold true in timeless/potential senses, your answer is right. How many fish are/were/will there be in the universe? {ci'i} may not be right, but then it may. You'd have to be specific and say {xo da ca'a finpe}: how many really-and-truly are fish. That's what ca'a is for. ~mark