I forgot to reply to this part:

On Wed, Nov 16,= 2011 at 8:30 AM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yah= oo.com> wrote:

The only Lojbanic thing I see in all of this at the mome= nt is that that maximal bunch ought to be given a separate gadri.

As= a longtime lurker on this list, I would just assume personally avoid espou= sing any such specific proposal for the time being :-)

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:

* Monday, 2011-11-14 at 15:24 -0500 - maikxlx <maikxlx@gmail.com&= gt;:

> But yesterday as I was reading random online materials (this one -
> http://amor.cms.hu-berlin.de/~h2816i= 3x/Talks/GenericitySeattle.ho.pdf ), I
> found what I think is a good bunch-resisting, kind-example:
>
> - (2a) Transistors were invented by Shockley.

I don't think we should feel obliged to treat as a jbokind (whatever<= br> they end up being) everything for which English uses a bare plural.

In this case, surely what Shockley invented was the idea (si'o) of
a transistor.

Martin

So, would you have us write {lo si'o [za'e] g= rezunca'a cu se finti la .caklis.}?

I believe that pretty much {lo s= i'o broda} =3D {lo sidbo be lo broda}, where lo broda is again is a referen= ce to a kind with clearly _no_ actuals/mundanes/instances, either needed or= wanted. Would you rewrite {lo broda cu sidbo} as {lo si'o broda cu s= idbo}?

The idea that both you and John invoke is to grammaticize Lojban's kind= references (and John would probabIy like to grammaticize generics as well)= . In all honesty, I agree we don't have to follow English, and it's w= orth considering the idea theoretically. It might actually be benefic= ial*, but aside from the arguable redundancy of kind-marking, I don't belie= ve that anyone has cataloged the large number of bridi places with respect = to kinds and generics; each place may well admit one, the other, or both.&n= bsp; Until that happens we really don't know how big of a change this would= entail -- or at least _I_ don't as a not-so-frequent user.

*For example clearing up the specific/nonspecific distinction in "mi si= sku lo broda" would be valuable and should be mandatory -- assuming that bo= th readings are allowed, as I believe they are.

-Mike

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.