[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la nitcion cusku di'e
... until I find out why John thinks piro means every fraction, which would mean that piro loi broda can mean the same as ro lo broda after all.
John emphatically said piro does NOT mean every fraction.
Thanks for the historical update. So things are indeed even worse than I thought. The funny thing is, the MEX-obsesssed incompetence which made tuples into math sets, and conflated tuples and masses, has also saved the collective by introducing the cartesian product alongside the set.
Are you talking about {pi'u}? How does it save the collective?
It is one of my never-use cmavo.
> [...]
> >The Lojbanmass will do for wanting/needing/seeking, at a pinch,
> because
> >it includes in its denotation the Any-x: mi nitcu loi mikce is true of
> >{x1 .a x2 .a x3...}.
> That's {mi nitcu lo mikce}. If it is true for at least one
> of x1, x2, x3, ..., then it is true. But it has to be true
> for at least one of them, there has to be at least one
> doctor such that I need that doctor.
Come come, Jorge. That's nitcu lo mikce in the transparent reading. A
legitimate model-theoretical interpretation of the sentence will plug
in a value ahead of time.
That's what I meant. You said that "mi nitcu loi mikce is true of
{x1 .a x2 .a x3...}", and I'm saying that x1 .a x2 .a x3... is
{lo mikce}. Not what we want.
Since you're Jorge, though, I'm obviously missing something here. How is nitcu lo mikce not de re?
It is. Just like x1 .a x2 .a x3... mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_addphotos_3mf