From jcowan@reutershealth.com Thu Feb 22 08:21:25 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jcowan@reutershealth.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 22 Feb 2001 16:20:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 20550 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2001 16:20:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Feb 2001 16:20:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.reutershealth.com) (204.243.9.36) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Feb 2001 17:21:44 -0000 Received: from reutershealth.com (IDENT:cowan@[192.168.3.11]) by mail.reutershealth.com (Pro-8.9.3/0.0.0) with ESMTP id LAA28344; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:22:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A953C62.6070704@reutershealth.com> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:20:50 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16-22 i686; en-US; 0.7) Gecko/20010119 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robin Lee Powell Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] set mechanics References: <20010221222111.D5703@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: John Cowan Robin Lee Powell wrote: > Does anyone interpret: > > mi ce do ku'a na'e bo do > > as resulting in anything other than the set with the single element > 'mi'? Strictly, "na'ebo do" means "something other than you", and what it refers to is context-sensitive. In this context, it would be legitimate to read it as "the set complement of {you}", but that is not the only conceivable reading. The set consisting of John and someone other than Mary need not be the union of {John} and ~{Mary}. > mi ce do goi ko'a > > binds ko'a to do. Does anyone have an elegant way to bind ko'a to the > two element set mi ce do? This is what "vu'o" is for -- binding a relative clause/phrase to a compound sumti. -- There is / one art || John Cowan no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein