WikiDiscuss

A> Gee, I hope I said "intrersects;" "overlaps" would not say anything about what is, only about what may be.
B> The point is — in both cases — that {lo broda cu brode} does not say that the species Broda is a brode (it will usually not be, since most properties are not of species but of ordinary things; the species Broda is also nota broda, for the same reason).

C> This is one of those cases, as I say, where what is involved is the intensional part. I confess I had not thought about the intensions of quantifiers (or the quantification of intensions), so I am unsure what to make of {mi nitcu re da}. I'll get back to you on that.
All I meant in the original part was that one cannot infer from {lo broda cu brode} to {su'o broda cu brode} (or maybe it will be snappier — and more accurate — to make that {su'o broda zo'u by brode}). Nice points both, but not damning so far as I can see now.

D>Intersection is about specimens since it is essentially about mingling [ now think that terminology is exactly backwards except that there must be a better term than "mingling"] and that is about some one thing being a specimen of both lo broda and lo brode. Otherwise there would be no connection to what is.

E> As always, I am unsure what examples with {me} mean because I don;t keep track of its meaning-ot-the-week. However, it appears here to somehow shift to intensions — which is something we do need to be able to do — so that it means lo broda overlaps lo brode (brodeness is part of the meaning of "broda" at least in posse). The mover from that to {lo broda cu brode} is never valid (though it goes through sometimes, especially if lo brode pervades lo broda and there are brodas), for there may either be no brodas or the may all be naku brode. I can't follow the rest of your example, partly because of {me}, I am sure, and partly because it seems to be based on some assumptions that I do not make and have not hinted at being the case. I admit that I cannot even formulate what those assumptions might be at the moment. Tell me, please, the mechanics of the inferences you are describing that go through and of those that do not.

F> Hell, we could use {mlatu}, but it doesn't make sense to. And it is not much farther from "pervasion" than {klesi} is. Pervasion is about intensions (properties and loci) and {klesi} (except {klesi3}) is about sets and specimens, extensions. (I can't think of a way to twist things around so that {klesi3} could be used: pervasion needs two properties, not one.) Your example is dead right for what you want to say and its truth ultimately derives from the tact that lo danlu pervades lo ractu, but it does not mention this latter fact — which would have to be said, I think, as {lo danlu cu [pervades] lo ractu} (which is, I gather, what you thought you said. [I do think you are right in reversing the order of terms here — and so of needing another expression than "pervasion." Back to the papers for a while then.)

Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
pc:
> {lo broda cu brode} is a convenient way of saying that
> Broda intersects Brode, but Brode is preumably not in that intersection, so
> its existence is not relevant; only the existence of brodas counts.

A>I thought {lo broda cu brode}, in species talk, meant that Broda
overlaps Brode, not necessarily intersects.

> You
> cannot validly quantify from {lo broda cu brode} to either {su'o brode cu
> brode} or even {su'o da cu brode} (though, of course, these are generally
> true)

B>I agree with the first part (su'o brode). I'm not sure what you mean by
"validly quantify". Is it a problem to quantify over species?

C>mi nitcu lo tanxe e lo dakli -> mi nitcu re da

> I knew you wouldn't like this, but negations don't validly go past bare
> {lo broda} in either direction (though generally do, to be sure): from out to
> in because lo broda may have no specimens (ther are no brodas), from in to
> out because lo broda may have specimens in both Brode and Naku Brode.

D>I don't understand why you bring specimens in, since {lo broda naku brode}
should not be about specimens of lo broda or lo brode.

The way I see it:

E>lo prenu cu me lo klama
People are goers.

That says that lo prenu overlaps lo klama. In simple cases like
this one it can be simplified to {lo prenu cu klama}, but this
move is not always availableble (for example from {me lo mi broda}),
and the reverse move is not always possible: {lo broda cu brode
lo brodi} could be {lo broda cu me lo brode be lo brodi} or
{lo brodi cu me lo se brode be lo broda}.

F> For pervasions we can use {klesi}:

lo ractu cu klesi lo danlu
Rabbits are a kind of animal.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail