[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jorge Llambias scripsit:
> I'm referring to the things that are counted by the inner
> quantifier. In {loi ro blosazri}, ro refers to every member
> of an underlying set. Lojbab is saying that the admiral
> is not a member of {lo'i ro blosazri} but is still somehow
> included in {loi ro blosazri}.
Yes, I see the problem. I think you can be lo blosazri even if you
never lay hand to tiller. The human voice operates the ship as surely
as the human hand.
> >Not every part of lo blosazri is itself
> >lo blosazri, but every such part is included in loi blosazri regardless.
>
> "Included" in what sense? Surely it is not counted by the
> inner quantifier?
No. Inner quantifiers only make sense if there are distinct lo blosazri
to count.
> >This extends to such things as the ship's cook's wooden leg.
>
> So {lei re jukpa} could refer to the "cook-and-leg" mass?
This is the same trouble as above. The cook *and* his leg
are parts of the boat-operating mass (though cooks don't do
ordinary ship's duty, which is why I mentioned them -- and indeed
why one-legged men often got the job of cook).
> The leg is a part of {lei pa jukpa} as much as it is a
> part of {le pa jukpa}, but is not a member of {le'i pa jukpa}.
Agreed.
> Depends on the context. If we're discussing whether we're on
> the Earth or on the Moon, then being on the 12th floor of a
> building does count as being cpana the Earth, I would say.
Fair enough.
--
John Cowan jcowan@hidden.email www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan
Promises become binding when there is a meeting of the minds and consideration
is exchanged. So it was at King's Bench in common law England; so it was
under the common law in the American colonies; so it was through more than
two centuries of jurisprudence in this country; and so it is today.
--_Specht v. Netscape_