Received: from mail-la0-f57.google.com ([209.85.215.57]:53596) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Uo6be-0006jp-0Y for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 23:38:39 -0700 Received: by mail-la0-f57.google.com with SMTP id fl20sf371956lab.22 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 23:38:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=x-beenthere:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=nDdNtR30cdHGQFbqiNcewuRUf/eZf8j/3HK9UvXbdOc=; b=PPjVc2X5LNv9azEK9AmpqHujpOcc7E93Ce2TA/lWli3r2k+L8uTRO7NhUNp7rZZdEY 89Nfk66e2+PgXx+FD886rm2qmk0jiY+rNLSbNtTNL9LrUUcrmbChbvU5xbVS3FjHL/lz //qw7BHqso5RJ++KDvIeShqW6jOjJV3Qs3qve/KNUeXl08Webde08BNGo4od4UlpMyRp bVPgN91V+fQygn5EZ0QjhK5oYiLSuq7oJabfkXIDkNNB1OuZ0erFGXpBL06TpGIwiNxX o5X6esD1b9YGGZlLdXVBQevhbOfogOtYw1cy/Nrykh5hnbPhWiIkgFyFKkvLuT6M8Lhc efbA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-beenthere:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=nDdNtR30cdHGQFbqiNcewuRUf/eZf8j/3HK9UvXbdOc=; b=fvgDySxRCzrFG0nymBI3MokndslSJIvbE8A2wbtqa4HUzUCK2rz0LGioYrCRSrw1Un gg+pOLCyZ57CZSaDCJ2Ftufv6Pzzu9V+f9j5BjhSy5XlOBUf/eneB8GcP8jm5CL+/gA/ lBG2z8YCD34iWOS2p1Hmt63mFxj0a5u3wrJTYEHMikVY4dJZbdtl7xu+0cTVHfaQFPRK ksisHBDDtlzF0qhCQHyxZ2/4StKD+cRYIPkWTyvD7dS4PmChmL+WkJau5gIWczDmXDWp MzkUyLzkGsRprJYybFRlmN7oTc5TQRjGP5WliPXLw3vkSgDeHlYhzJDaUkU76Ik5JBdt SvWQ== X-Received: by 10.180.198.226 with SMTP id jf2mr114348wic.21.1371364702225; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 23:38:22 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.187.244 with SMTP id fv20ls166856wic.31.canary; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 23:38:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.205.25.135 with SMTP id ri7mr720833bkb.0.1371364701617; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 23:38:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f176.google.com (mail-lb0-f176.google.com [209.85.217.176]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id rl1si502480bkb.3.2013.06.15.23.38.21 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 15 Jun 2013 23:38:21 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.217.176 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.217.176; Received: by mail-lb0-f176.google.com with SMTP id z5so1635092lbh.35 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 23:38:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.21.99 with SMTP id u3mr4391069lae.18.1371364701235; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 23:38:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.21.38 with HTTP; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 23:38:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <8561d566-8f8b-4b46-9e7b-5fdbc1367b33@googlegroups.com> References: <8561d566-8f8b-4b46-9e7b-5fdbc1367b33@googlegroups.com> Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 00:38:21 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] "we" and masses. A bug in the CLL? From: Jonathan Jones To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: eyeonus@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.217.176 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=eyeonus@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0149397adff03d04df3fb934 X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / --089e0149397adff03d04df3fb934 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 11:11 PM, la arxokuna w= rote: > First let me show an extract from the loglan dictionary. > > mio (p) we/us/ourselves, in the "I/me and others independently" sense, th= e > 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. > mu (p) we/us/ourselves, in the "you and I/me jointly" sense, the 1st 2nd > person set variable. Equivalent to 'mi ze tu'. 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 others" sense of we/us. > miu (p) we/us/ourselves, in the "I/me and others jointly" sense, the 1st > 3rd person set variable. Equivalent to 'mi ze da'. Cf. mu/mo for the "you > and I/me" sense of we/us, and muu/muo for the "you and I and others" sens= e > of we/us. > mo (p) we/us/ourselves, in the "you and I/me independently" sense, the 1s= t > 2nd person multiple variable. Equivalent to 'mi, e tu'. Cf. mu for the "y= ou > 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. > > What one might notice first is that there is no equivalent to "mio/miu" > which corresponds to English "we". > > "we" is defined in Wiktionary as "The speakers/writers, or the > speaker/writer and at least one other person." so the meaning is pretty > clear. > Yeah. That's {mi}. > However, the CLL says "English-speakers often suffer because they cannot > easily distinguish =93mi'o=94 from =93mi'a=94 " > which is indeed true. I don't understand why Lojban doesn't have "we" in > the sense English, Chinese, Russian, Arabic, Hindi and Spanish have it > (although i suggested mi'ai a > few days ago). > > Now to the main issue. Even if we look at the remaining "mu/mo" we'll see > 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 = same > 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 > mass carry the piano" as (at least what Randall Holmes says) a mass shoul= d > not be converted into the conjunction of its component parts by any logic= al > operator because strictly speaking it shouldn't come with a privileged > partition > > However, jvs has two > definitions, the second one (by selpahi) defining {mi'o} as "mi jo'u do" > entered in 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 > {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}? > > -- > 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 > email 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. > > > --=20 mu'o mi'e .aionys. .i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o (Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D ) --=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. --089e0149397adff03d04df3fb934 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 11:11 PM, la arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
First let me show an extract from the loglan dictionary.

mio (p) we/us/ourselves, in the "I/me and others independently&q= uot; 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.
mu (p) we/us/ourselves, in the "you and I/me jointly" sense,= the 1st 2nd person set variable. Equivalent to 'mi ze tu'. 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 others" sense of we/us.
miu (p) we/us/ourselves, in the "I/me and others jointly" se= nse, the 1st 3rd person set variable. Equivalent to 'mi ze 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.
mo (p) we/us/ourselves, in the "you and I/me independently" = sense, the 1st 2nd person multiple variable. Equivalent to 'mi, e tu= 9;. 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.

What one might notice first is that there is no e= quivalent to "mio/miu" which corresponds to English "we"= ;.=A0

"we" is defined in Wiktionary as &= quot;The speakers/writers, or the speaker/writer and at least one other per= son." so the meaning is pretty clear.

Yeah. That's {mi}.
=A0
However, the CLL says "English-speakers often suff= er because they cannot easily distinguish =93mi'o=94 from =93mi'a= =94" which is indeed true. I don't understand why Lojban doesn= 't have "we" in the sense English, Chinese, Russian, Arabic, = Hindi and Spanish have it (although i suggested=A0mi'ai=A0a few days = ago).

Now to the main issue. Even if we look at the remaining= "mu/mo" we'll see 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 same as =93mi joi do=94, the mass of me and you considered jointly.&= quot;
This means we can't talk say "Each of us carries t= he piano" vs. "We as a mass carry the piano" as (at least wh= at Randall Holmes says) a mass should not be converted into the conjunction= of its component parts by any logical operator because strictly speaking i= t shouldn't come with a privileged partition

However, jvs=A0has two definitions, the second one (by s= elpahi) defining =A0{mi'o} as "mi jo'u do" entered in Dec= ember 2012. I don't remember any discussions of this issue at that time= .

I don't know if =A0it should be =A0{ro mi'o bev= ri} vs. {lu'o mi'o bevri} =A0or {ro lu'a mi'o bevri} vs. {l= u'o mi'o bevri}.

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

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;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.
=A0
=A0



--
mu'o = mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi= .luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father= . :D )

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;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.
 
 
--089e0149397adff03d04df3fb934--