[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
I wrote: > xorxes: > > If I claim: > > > > su'o xe ka gerku cu broda > > At least some dog is broda > > > > then I want to also be able to claim that the kind does: > > > > ma'u se ka gerku cu broda > > Mr Dog is broda > > > > for any possible broda > > > > So what happens when "broda" is "xe ka gerku", "is an > > instance of dog" > > > > su'o xe ka gerku cu xe ka gerku > > At least one dog is (an instance of) a dog > > > > ma'u se ka gerku cu xe ka gerku > > Mr Dog is (an instance of) a dog > > > > Is that correect? "Mr Dog" should satisfy the same predicates > > that "some dog" satisfies > > That's right On further reflection, my answer is that I don't know. I would like to think about it further to see if I think it is possible to decide one way or another. But I'm not sure whether it is our duty to resolve ontologicl paradoxes. I mean, Lojban allows us to talk about the set of all sets that don't contain themselves, and we don't panic that that is a problem for Lojban. And even if my amateur ontological musings satisfy me, why should I expect anybody else to pay heed or be themself satisfied? --And.