WikiDiscuss

---

wrote:

>
> pc:
> > > > > I want the meaning of {PA
> > > > > sumti}
> > > > > to depend only on the referents of
> > > sumti,
> > > > > not on
> > > > > its form.
> > > >
> > > > And how does this not? The referent of
> {lo'i
> > > > broda} is a set of broda and what is
> among it
> > > is
> > > > either some broda or some set of broda
> (just
> > > what
> > > > {me} means with sets is somewhat obscure,
> > > since
> > > > it is "defined" for other types of
> entities.
> > >
> > > Well, that's the point. In my definitions
> it is
> > > no
> > > more obscure than any other broda, {lo'i
> [PA]
> > > broda}
> > > is just {lo selcmi be lo [PA] broda}. It
> is
> > > not
> > > a special case.
> >
> >
> > But I thought the issue was about {PA lo'i
> broda}
> > and {PA lo broda}; we seem to agree on the
> inner
> > quantifiers — though I think that counts
> against
> > your identification.
>
> {PA lo broda} and {PA lo'i broda} are both
> examples
> of PA sumti. I don't need to give a special
>
> rule for each. I don't need to give a special
> rule
> for {me lo'i broda} either, because that's just
>
> {me lo pa selcmi be ...}.

Well, that is what is in dispute ultimately, so
saying it yet again does not further the
discussion. As for the rest, your remarks suggest
that you either think {pa lo'i broda} is some
unspecified set of brodas, like {pa lo selcmi be
lo broda} or you think that {pa lo selcmi be lo
broda} is a one-membered subset or is one broda,
like {pa lo'i broda}. Either way you violate
your uniformity rule and need special, either for
{lo'i} among the gadri or {selcmi} among
predicates.

>
> > > > Does merely specifying how many
> satisfiers of
> > > the
> > > > predicate are involved completely change
> the
> > > > nature of the referring expression? Why?
> > >
> > > By definition:
> > >
> > > {lo'i PA broda} = {lo selcmi be lo PA
> broda}.
> > >
> > That is, of course, your definition. Since
> its
> > appropriateness is ultimately the point at
> issue,
> > citing it as an explanation is mere question
> begging.
>
> Then I'm afraid I don't understand what type of
> reasons
> you are after.
>
Actually, I don't think there can be a good
reason for the identification, so I don't really
expect you to provide one. What I have been
presenting is (now five) reasons not to accept
the identification, to see if you can knock any
of them down.

>
> pc:
> > Oh, yes. Not only may {lo selcmi be lo
> broda}
> > refer to more than one set — and so not be
> > identical to the referent of {lo'i broda},
> which
> > is one set, but also, while {lo'i broda}
> contains
> > only broda, the set(s) among lo selcmi be lo
> > broda may have other things in them as well
> --
> > may indeed be preponderantly non-brodas.
>
> That's already contemplated. The actual
> definition I have on
> the proposal page is:
>
> lo selcmi be ro lo [PA] broda e no lo na me lo
> [PA] broda
>
> Ideally we should have a brivla meaning "x1 is
> the set of x2",
> where x2 are all and only the members of x1,
> then the definition
> would be simpler. I suppose nothing really
> stops us from defining
> {selcmi} that way, since it doesn't really have
> to mean exactly
> {se cmima}.
>
> In the case of {loi} we do have the desired
> brivla, that's why
> {loi PA broda} can be simply {lo gunma be lo PA
> broda}.

OK, that knocks down one, four to go.
Essentially the same objections apply to this
latest definition as well: the first is PA brodas
(collectively), the second is some collections of
PA brodas — maybe but not necessarily only one
-- and that one may or may not be the one picked
out {loi broda}.

You are welcome to use {selcmi} in that way --
once you advertise it. In that case, x2 is
presumably {loi broda}, not {lo} (or, of course,
{lo} in your ideal sense if you are point
shifting again.