TECH: proposed acceptance of TLI "me" interpretation

After thinking about it for quite a while, I have come to believe that
the TLI interpretation of "me" is the correct one, and should superseded
the current rather vague "assocatied with <sumti>" that we have always
had.

When last we visited this question, it seemed to me that the TLI
interpretation was the same as "du be <sumti>", but I have now been convinced
that is is not.  Instead, it is an operator that constructs a selbri
(one-place) that is true of all the things described by the sumti and no others.
Thus, if I am "la djan." or just "mi", then "me la djan." and "me mi" are selbri
that truthfully apply precisely to me and nothing else.

Thus, the sentences

1)	la djan. me mi
2)	mi me la djan.
3)	la djan. me la djan.

count as true, and

4)	la bob. me la djan.

counts as false.  So far, so much like "du".  But consider the case where the
sumti is plural in reference rather than singular.  If "le ci nolraitru"
are the ones who (ka'u) arrive on January 6, then

5)	la melkior. me le ci nolraitru
6)	la baltazar. me le ci nolraitru
7)	la kaspar. me le ci nolraitru

count as true, and 

8)	la djan me le ci nolraitru
9)	la bob. me le ci nolraitru

count as false.  In this sense, "me" is an extension of the logician's
operator to turn a singular term into a general term; it now also turns a
plural term into a general one, and in a natural extension.  Note that Examples 5-7 cannot be seen as variants of "du": it is not the case, say, that Melchior
is identical to the three kings.

The only way to do this now, I believe, is to create a gratuitous set and
then tear it apart:

10)	la melkior. se cmima lu'i le ci nolraitru

This change will not really make much text incorrect:  most uses of "me" now are
either in observatives that are titles, or in the seltanru of tanru, where the
meaning can be vague without problem:

11)	ta me la kraislr. karce
	That's a Chysler car.

-- 
John Cowan					cowan@ccil.org
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.