WikiDiscuss

---

wrote:

>
> pc:
> > I gather that {lo'i broda} is a distributive
> > group of sets for you.
>
> I know it is pointless to say this again, but
> anyway: no, it is not a group for me. It is a
> set or
> several sets of broda, not a group of sets.

Sorry, it is hard to talk in English about things
working together without giving them a collective
label. I had your point (though I disagree with
it in both respects) and will try to be more
careful when tlking to you in the future.

> > The point at this place is that {lo'i broda}
> and
> > {lo selcmi be lo broda}, being different
> > descriptions are not compelled to be the same
>
> > set(s) — any more than two occurrences of
> {su'o
> > da poi broda} need to be the same broda(s).
>
> Of course not. All it means is that you can
> replace
> one expression with the other in a given
> context
> and get the same meaning. Neither expression is
>
> compelled to be anything without a context.

Sorry, but if they are identical they have to be
the same sets and there is nothing to compel them
to be so, even in a single context.

> > In the current system — not in your ideal
> one
> > (and I really don't think you marked that
> shift
> > at all) — {lo'i pa broda} is a set(or even
> sets)
> > containing exactly a single broda, while {lo
> pa
> > selcmi be lo broda} is a single set of broda
> of
> > indeterminate size.
>
> Right, and I don't propose to equate those.

Why should mentioning the size of a set change
the whole nature? It seems that internal
quantifiers are non-restrictive relative clauses.

> If you look carefully at the definition, I
> equate
> {lo'i pa broda} with {lo selcmi be lo pa
> broda},
> not with {lo pa selcmi be lo broda}.
> {lo'i} = {lo selcmi be lo}.
>
Well, I give up trying to make something
consistent and useful out of xorlan. If it
becomes Lojban eventually, that ought to hasten
the need for LoCCan3 (strictly 4 in that case),
though LLG has not yet shown much of the
political aura that seems to be needed along with
the aesthetic ones to start up another offspring.
One last question, so that I can understand
whatever it is that I am dropping — against the
day when it will come up again somewhere else.
You regularly say that {loi broda} is one or
several broda taken collectively, yet, by the
definition you have been using here, {lo gunma be
lo broda}, it is in fact several
several-brodas-taken-collectively (see why
"group" is so handy, even if it has no
ontological status?) taken distributively. So
each of these several-brodas has to fill the
predicate involved. What you seem to have been
talking about in various places here is {pa loi
broda}, a single several-brodas taken
collectively. Which is right?