[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
John:
> pycyn@hidden.email scripsit:
>
> "le'i broda" is not the
> set I have in mind, but the (veridical) set of the things that I have
> in mind. The former would be le se cmima etc. That being the case,
> there is only one empty set (whereas intensionally there might be
> many descriptions of it), and it cannot be the set of zero in-mind things,
> because you cannot have no things in mind: le'i no broda is as bad
> as le no broda
For a nonempty set, it makes no difference whether you have the set
in mind or the members; having the one in mind entails that you have
the other in mind. But one can have an empty set in mind. If le'i
referred to the set one has in mind, then one could express this as
{le'i ro broda} at no cost to the usual interpretation of {le'i (su'o)}.
I think it is desirable, also for pedagogical reasons, to say that
le ro broda = lo ro co'e voi broda
le su'o broda = lo su'o co'e voi broda
and likewise for lVi and lV'i.
--And.