Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of felipeg.assis@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4001:c03::244 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4001:c03::244;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8561d566-8f8b-4b46-9e7b-5fdbc1367b33@googlegroups.com>
References: <8561d566-8f8b-4b46-9e7b-5fdbc1367b33@googlegroups.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 13:52:28 -0300
Message-ID: <CALMa68r4BqLh=eFcGPV1mA-fDkYpg3xR6d-Nu4RD8qVrueM4Gw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] "we" and masses. A bug in the CLL?
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Felipe_Gon=E7alves_Assis?= <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

With respect to the ambiguous "we":
The Tupi language, spoken by Brazilian Indians, is an example of a
language that has three distinct "we"s:
 * "=EEand=E9", corresponding to {mi'o}
 * "ore", corresponding to {mi'a} or plural {mi}, and
 * "as=E9", corresponding to {ma'a}.

You will have trouble arguing that the mandatory disambiguation is a
heavy burden on the speaker. The concept of {do} is very clear on
one's mind, and so, the distinction of {mi'o} vs. {mi'a} vs. {ma'a},
regardless of his mother tongue.

And what about "you", which is ambiguous between {do} and {do'a} (even
when plural)?

With respect to {joi} vs. {jo'u}:
I guess this is part of the post-xorlo phenomenon of avoiding masses
where unnecessary. I am particularly pro {jo'u}, which is simple and
general. Anyway, such a change would be for CLL 2.0...

mu'o
mi'e .asiz.

On 16 June 2013 02:11, 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" 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" sense 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.
> 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 do=
n'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
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.