Re: Nick tries valiantly to save face (His first sentence)

[Arthur Hyun <cbmvax!uunet!rpi.edu!ash>]

>The first problem is an error of my own:  "le'i" should have been "lo'i".
>"le'i" is often translated "the set of", but it really means "the whole of
>the set of the at-least-one-thing I describe as being".  So "le'i cribe"
>means "the set of something(s) I call bears".  This is analogous to "le
>cribe", which means "the something(s) I call a bear/bears."  "lo'i",
>on the other hand, means "the whole of the set of all those things which
>really are", so "lo'i cribe" means "the set of all bears".

Hmm.  In what case is it appropriate to use le'i or le over lo'i or lo?
That is, in your particular example, in the overwhelming majority of
cases, I think, "the something(s) I call bears" will be the same as
"the thing which really is a bear".

>Here we want to make a claim about "the set of all my Lojban sentences",
>namely that "this-utterance" is the "first-of" them.  This is
>
>	dei pamoi lo'i mi lojbo jufra
>	This-utterance is-first-of the-whole-of-the-set-of-all-things-which-
>	really-are Lojbanic-type-of sentences pertaining-to-me.
>
>Now suppose I had written:
>
>	dei pamoi lo mi lojbo jufra
>	This-utterance is-first-of at-least-one-of-all-things-which-are
>	Lojbanic-type-of sentences pertaining-to-me.
>
>What would that claim?  It would mean that there is at least one of my
>Lojban sentences of which this utterance is the first.  In other words,
>this utterance is the first (the first what?) of some Lojbanic sentence of
>mine.

This is a very important clarification, I feel.  However, in this particular
instance, I think it would actually be more correct to use the latter, as
the former setence, due to the tanru "lojbo jufra" could refer to even
English sentences refering to lojban.  That is, the first statement is
almost certainly false due to the verdical nature of "lo'i".

>The use of "set" in a place structure is generally a signal that a set
>sumti, either using "le'i" or "lo'i", or using "lu'i" to convert another
>sumti to a set, or using "ce" or "ce'o" to combine two or more sumti into
>a set, is appropriate in order to make sense.  Either that, or the
>referent of the sumti should itself be a set, thus:
>
>	dei pamoi lo mi lojbo jufra girzu
>	This-utterance is-first-of at-least-one-of-all-those-things-which-are
>	my Lojbanic-type-of-sentence sets.

Perhaps I have a different idea of what a "set" is?  I don't really
see how "mi lojbo jufra" is not a set, as it could be plural; that
is, "my lojbanic-type-of sentences".  If this were the case, then
it seems to me that it is, actually, a set--a set of those sentences
of mine which are "lojbanic-type".

							cheers,
							arthur