Subject: Re: [lojban] set mechanics

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:20:50 -0500

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 <[email-masked]>
no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein