Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 22:11:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: la arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <8561d566-8f8b-4b46-9e7b-5fdbc1367b33@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [lojban] "we" and masses. A bug in the CLL?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_925_15908938.1371359461091"
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

------=_Part_925_15908938.1371359461091
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

First let me show an extract from the loglan dictionary.

mio (p) we/us/ourselves, in the "I/me and others independently" sense, the=
=20
1st 3rd person multiple variable. Equivalent to 'mi, e da'. Cf. mu/mo for=
=20
the "you and I/me" sense of we/us, and muu/muo for the "you and I and=20
others" sense of we/us.
mu (p) we/us/ourselves, in the "you and I/me jointly" sense, the 1st 2nd=20
person set variable. Equivalent to 'mi ze tu'. Cf. mo for the "you and I/me=
=20
independently" sense of we/us, miu/mio for the "I and others" sense of=20
we/us, and muu/muo for the "you and I and others" sense of we/us.
miu (p) we/us/ourselves, in the "I/me and others jointly" sense, the 1st=20
3rd person set variable. Equivalent to 'mi ze da'. Cf. mu/mo for the "you=
=20
and I/me" sense of we/us, and muu/muo for the "you and I and others" sense=
=20
of we/us.
mo (p) we/us/ourselves, in the "you and I/me independently" sense, the 1st=
=20
2nd person multiple variable. Equivalent to 'mi, e tu'. Cf. mu for the "you=
=20
and I/me jointly" sense of we/us, miu/mio for the "I and others" sense of=
=20
we/us, and muu/muo for the "you and I and others" sense of we/us.

What one might notice first is that there is no equivalent to "mio/miu"=20
which corresponds to English "we".=20

"we" is defined in Wiktionary as "The speakers/writers, or the=20
speaker/writer and at least one other person." so the meaning is pretty=20
clear.
However, the CLL says "English-speakers often suffer because they cannot=20
easily distinguish =93mi'o=94 from =93mi'a=94 <http://dag.github.io/cll/7/2=
/>"=20
which is indeed true. I don't understand why Lojban doesn't have "we" in=20
the sense English, Chinese, Russian, Arabic, Hindi and Spanish have it=20
(although i suggested mi'ai <http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/mi'ai> a few=
=20
days ago).

Now to the main issue. Even if we look at the remaining "mu/mo" we'll see=
=20
that Lojban has only one of them.

The CLL says (regarding KOhA3)

"All of these pro-sumti represent masses. For example, =93mi'o=94 is the sa=
me=20
as =93mi joi do=94, the mass of me and you considered jointly."
This means we can't talk say "Each of us carries the piano" vs. "We as a=20
mass carry the piano" as (at least what Randall Holmes says) a mass should=
=20
not be converted into the conjunction of its component parts by any logical=
=20
operator because strictly speaking it shouldn't come with a privileged=20
partition

However, jvs <http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/mi%27o> has two definitions,=
=20
the second one (by selpahi) defining  {mi'o} as "mi jo'u do" entered in=20
December 2012. I don't remember any discussions of this issue at that time.

I don't know if  it should be  {ro mi'o bevri} vs. {lu'o mi'o bevri}  or=20
{ro lu'a mi'o bevri} vs. {lu'o mi'o bevri}.

So should we change the CLL to say it means {jo'u}, not {joi}?

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


------=_Part_925_15908938.1371359461091
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

First let me show an extract from the loglan dictionary.<div><br></div><div=
><div>mio (p) we/us/ourselves, in the "I/me and others independently" sense=
, the 1st 3rd person multiple variable. Equivalent to 'mi, e da'. Cf. mu/mo=
 for the "you and I/me" sense of we/us, and muu/muo for the "you and I and =
others" sense of we/us.</div><div>mu (p) we/us/ourselves, in the "you and I=
/me jointly" sense, the 1st 2nd person set variable. Equivalent to 'mi ze t=
u'. Cf. mo for the "you and I/me independently" sense of we/us, miu/mio for=
 the "I and others" sense of we/us, and muu/muo for the "you and I and othe=
rs" sense of we/us.</div><div>miu (p) we/us/ourselves, in the "I/me and oth=
ers jointly" sense, the 1st 3rd person set variable. Equivalent to 'mi ze d=
a'. Cf. mu/mo for the "you and I/me" sense of we/us, and muu/muo for the "y=
ou and I and others" sense of we/us.</div><div>mo (p) we/us/ourselves, in t=
he "you and I/me independently" sense, the 1st 2nd person multiple variable=
. Equivalent to 'mi, e tu'. Cf. mu for the "you and I/me jointly" sense of =
we/us, miu/mio for the "I and others" sense of we/us, and muu/muo for the "=
you and I and others" sense of we/us.</div></div><div><br></div><div>What o=
ne might notice first is that there is no equivalent to "mio/miu" which cor=
responds to English "we".&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div>"we" is defined in=
 Wiktionary as "The speakers/writers, or the speaker/writer and at least on=
e other person." so the meaning is pretty clear.<br></div><div>However, the=
 CLL says "<a href=3D"http://dag.github.io/cll/7/2/">English-speakers often=
 suffer because they cannot easily distinguish =93mi'o=94 from =93mi'a=94</=
a>" which is indeed true. I don't understand why Lojban doesn't have "we" i=
n the sense English, Chinese, Russian, Arabic, Hindi and Spanish have it (a=
lthough i suggested&nbsp;<a href=3D"http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/mi'ai"=
>mi'ai</a>&nbsp;a few days ago).</div><div><br></div><div>Now to the main i=
ssue. Even if we look at the remaining "mu/mo" we'll see that Lojban has on=
ly one of them.</div><div><br></div><div>The CLL says (regarding KOhA3)</di=
v><div><br></div><div>"All of these pro-sumti represent masses. For example=
, =93mi'o=94 is the same as =93mi joi do=94, the mass of me and you conside=
red jointly."</div><div>This means we can't talk say "Each of us carries th=
e piano" vs. "We as a mass carry the piano" as (at least what Randall Holme=
s says) a mass should not be converted into the conjunction of its componen=
t parts by any logical operator because strictly speaking it shouldn't come=
 with a privileged partition</div><div><br></div><div>However, <a href=3D"h=
ttp://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/mi%27o">jvs</a>&nbsp;has two definitions, t=
he second one (by selpahi) defining &nbsp;{mi'o} as "mi jo'u do" entered in=
 December 2012. I don't remember any discussions of this issue at that time=
.</div><div><br></div><div>I don't know if &nbsp;it should be &nbsp;{ro mi'=
o bevri} vs. {lu'o mi'o bevri} &nbsp;or {ro lu'a mi'o bevri} vs. {lu'o mi'o=
 bevri}.</div><div><div><br></div><div>So should we change the CLL to say i=
t means {jo'u}, not {joi}?</div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.<br />
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out=
">https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
&nbsp;<br />

------=_Part_925_15908938.1371359461091--