Wiki page BPFK Section: gismu Issues changed
John Cowan:
> > I (Robin Powell) am of the opinion that the "set" places
> > in various gismu are un-necessary, and should be abolished (with
> > the obvious exception of gismu that are specifically about sets).
> > Any specification of a group should be acceptable in these places.
>
> I don't think that's going to fly unless we have a list of which
> places you want to change.
I find 22 gismu with places reserved exclusively for sets:
slilu, bridi, kampu, simxu, steci, mupli, fadni, rirci,
cnano, ralju, cuxna, sisku, kancu, girzu, ciste, liste,
porsi, pluta, kruvi, linji, plita, kurfa.
Other gismu have places that mention sets, but they also allow
other things there. For example, the place structure of {fenso}
says that you can saw individuals together, or if you prefer
you can saw a set together.
> Sets were used there *because* they were
> the singularist view of a group.
But since there are examples of non-distributive places where
the gi'uste allows normal individuals, there is no reason for
these places to be restricted exclusively to sets.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail