WikiDiscuss

---

wrote:

>
> 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.

Reread several dozen notes about the inherent
incompatibility of this notion with Lojban as now
constituted. I am not sure what you think you
have (a plural constant is problematic in its own
way — see earlier again) but what you say
fluctuates back and forth between plural
quantification and groups (which I talk about
only because they are needed for current Lojban;
my preference has been for plural quantification
since a workable form became available).

> > > 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.

Well, the lists wou;d have to be revised to deal
with the distributive - collective contrast
anyhow; chaning those places from sets to
plurality would be a minor matter, lamost a a
case for universal search and replace.

> > 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?

To an intellecctually responsible theory that
gives you what your scattered wish list would
provide if it were feasible.