[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
pc: > a.rosta@hidden.email writes: > << > > I've only very recently been thinking about this, but my current thinking > is that {le'i (su'o) broda} is unspecified about whether the set is > e-defined or i-defined, tho if it is i-defined, the defining property > is not specified (every member is a broda, but not every broda is necessarily > a member). > > >> > Well, it is clearly not required that every member -- or any -- be a > broda, another (unfortunate) feature of e-gadri. True, but if one is worried about that, then one can change {le broda cu brode} to {le du ku noi ke'a broda cu brode}, or suchlike. > Nor is it required > that there be a defining property -- you just pick 'em out somehow. My point is that what you say is true for {le (su'o)} but not for {le ro}. For {le ro} there must be a defining property. > << > But, otoh, {le'i ro broda} would be an i-defined set, tho again with the > defining property unspecified. This is because cardinality ro allows for > cardinality 0. A 0-cardinality subset of lo'i broda cannot be defined > extensionally, so it must be defined intensionally. > >> > I don't suppose the size of the set (that is, the internal quantiier) > affects how the set is selected. If it is a specific set with its own identity, yet it might be empty, then it must have some identifying property besides the simple inventory of its members. > And, of course, in Lojban as > opposed to Andban and Llamban perhaps, {ro} does not allow 0 -- this > is logic after all (16.8(399)). 16.8 pertains to {ro} as a quantifier, not as a cardinal number. As a cardinal number in the so-called "inner quantifier" position, {ro} is little different from {tu'o}. As for Andban and LLamban, I've only said that I would have to unlearn less of {ro} as a quantifier did not entail {su'o}. Furthermore, I interpret 16.8 as making the existence follow from {da}. For instance, my interpretation is that no da poi broda cu brode entails da broda > And, defining a set with cardinality > 0 extensionally, were it allowed, would be a snap: don't pick anything. It's not a snap if the set is a specific one with its own identity and is a subset of {lo'i broda}. --And.