WikiDiscuss

pc:
> > So in your lojban you would have no way of
> > referring to
> > an individual card. The closest you could get
> > is the singleton
> > group that contains it, {le pa karda}.
....
> > So we can refer directly to a single set of
> > cards, {le'i karda},
> > but there is no way to refer directly to a
> > single card.
> Yup — with the exceptions above. Now you are
> beginning to see what is attractive about plural
> quantification, which does refer to cards (and
> not to groups).

Beginning to see? Are you serious? It is you who was
arguing for groups. In my scheme groups and sets
(loi and lo'i) are marginal enities, they are there
only for backwards compatibility. {lo broda} is a
plural constant. It refers to brodas, not to groups
of brodas.

> > That's why I don't use sets, they
> > don't add
> > anything.
>
> Well, they always add sets, but we have little
> real use for those except in set theory (so the
> set former could be move way over into MEX space,
> probably).

In the gi'uste, many gismu places (such as the x3 of
cuxna) are reserved for sets.

> Most of the real work is done — or
> could be — by groups, pretty much as it is done
> just by several things taken plurally (usually
> collectively for the kinds of things sets are
> called on for now) with plural quantification.

Yes.

> It does seem to me that you want plural
> quantification — or rather the naturalness that
> it gives you — without actually using plural
> quantification.

All I need are plural constants. Singular (distributive)
quantification, over the referents of those plural constants,
is useful to have for when it's needed.

> Come on over!

Where?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

___
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com