BPFK Section: Inexact Numbers
wrote:
> pc:
> > Then, if "sumti" refers to a set or group,
> {me
> > "sumti"} is just {du "sumti"}, a much clearer
> > claim, to say the least.
>
> Yes, whenever sumti has a single referent,
> {me}
> reduces to {du}, (There are some syntactical
> differences,
> but basically that's it.)
>
> > And this is then
> > completely general, since every sumti
> > refers to an individual,
>
> No. Some sumti refer to more than one
> individual.
> For example {le ci plise} refers to three
> individuals.
> In this case {me le ci plise} means "x1 is/are
> among
> the three apples", whereas {du le ci plise}
> gives
> "x1 are the three apples".
How does that work, exactly. We have a given of
single object predication. We nowwant to have
plural predication. Presumably that is what the
"formal definitions" will give us, if {lo} for
example has several references. Well, the one
trick we do have given for such cases is
quantification (i.e., extended conjunctons and
disjunctions of singular predications). The
"definition" of {lo} is not obviously a
quantification case and, indeed, you have fairly
regularly denied that {lo} does involve
quantifiers. So what is there? The form of the
"definition" (ignoring cntent for the moment) is
that of a singular predication, with nothing
added to make the transition. If you want to say
that {lo vo plise} has four referents, then you
owe us an explanation (a real definition) of just
how that works. To be sure, even if {lo vo
plise} refers to a single set of four apples, we
are owed an explanation of how that works, too.
But that explanation (though not the one for
{loi}) has been around for ever — except for
occasional disputes about what quantifier is to
be used when we say "Q of the members of the
set."
I admit that I cannot come up with any way of
doing this (or for {loi} either) beyond the
various suggestions I have made and you have
rejected, but I am eager to see your proposal,
however belatedly offered.