Re: LAhE and quantifiers
John Cowan <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.science.linguistics.lojban.jboske |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
And Rosta scripsit:
> However, redefining {lu'i} as "set that excludes everything except"
> gives more useful results.
That was indeed the intention. When I write of the set {3, 4}, I
implicitly claim that there are no other members.
> However, whereas {lu'a} ought happily to take either a set or a
> mass as its argument, lu'i and lu'o would take only 'individuals'
> (i.e. members/constituents).
Well, yes, in one sense. If the argument of lu'i is a set, then the
result of lu'i is a set containing a set as its only member.
Massifying a mass has no effect. But set/mass conversion is a very
sensible notion, and I don't see why lu'i and lu'o shouldn't achieve it.
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan <jcowan-k6JZYsoqQQ8PxK1qzZLvrwC/[email protected]>
You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn.
You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn.
Clear all so! `Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)