Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.237.89 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.94.237.89;
References: <8561d566-8f8b-4b46-9e7b-5fdbc1367b33@googlegroups.com> <CALMa68r4BqLh=eFcGPV1mA-fDkYpg3xR6d-Nu4RD8qVrueM4Gw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1371405876.998.YahooMailNeo@web184401.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 11:04:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] "we" and masses. A bug in the CLL?
To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALMa68r4BqLh=eFcGPV1mA-fDkYpg3xR6d-Nu4RD8qVrueM4Gw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="1009959307-1796515200-1371405876=:998"
X-Spam_score: 0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 1
X-Spam_bar: /
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", has
 identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original message
 has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
 similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
 the administrator of that system for details.
 
 Content preview:  After slogging through this long and repetitive thread, I
   find I have lost what the point was. To help guiding my understanding, I summarize
    the present situation as I understand it. In a given speech situation there
    is are a bunch (maybe only one) of people speaking or being represented by
    the speaker ({mi}), another bunch (not necessarily separate) who directly
    or vicariously hear the speech ({do}), and a third group not directly involved
    in the speech act ({ko'a} and just about everything else). In the event being
    spoken about any or all of these groups (or parts of them) may be involved
    and they may be referred to by the designations derived from their speech-act
    roles: {mi + do}, {mi + ko'a}, {do + ko'a} and {mi + do + ko'a}, in various
    abbreviated forms. On a standard Lojban assumption (at least since xorlo
   achieved its final form), the simplest such forms refer to the united bunches.
    The question of how those bunches satisfy the predicates involved is left
    to context or a demand for clarification. Toward clarification, then, we
   have a different forms for when the bunch satisfies the predicate distributively
    (individually, more or less) and when it satisfies it collectively (as a
   mass, ditto). As a side note, the English (and perhaps many other languages')
    "we", does not correspond directly to any of these things, since it is distinctly
    plural (unlike {mi}) and may include or exclude any number of others. So,
    aside from the general point that the issue of how a bunch of things satisfies
    a predicate ought to be a question about how to ark a predicate rather than
    how to mark an argument, what is the issue here? Apparently, it is that the
    system is defective in not covering all the possibilities of representing
    these combinations of bunches as individuals and masses. But why do we care
    about that? We do have ways of doing that for descriptions, but rarely use
    them (and often with proper trepidation, since often wrongly). Why worry
   about a similar shortage in pronouns (why not rather worry about the maount
    of [...] 
 
 Content analysis details:   (0.1 points, 5.0 required)
 
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
  0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED          ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked.
                             See
                             http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
                              for more information.
                             [URIs: googlegroups.com]
  0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM          Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
                             (kali9putra[at]yahoo.com)
  0.0 DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED   No valid author signature, adsp_override is
                             CUSTOM_MED
 -0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
  0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
  0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid
  0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID         DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid

--1009959307-1796515200-1371405876=:998
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

After slogging through this long and repetitive thread, I find I have lost =
what the point was.=A0 To help guiding my understanding, I summarize the pr=
esent situation as I understand it.
In a given speech situation there is are a bunch (maybe only one) of people=
 speaking or being represented by the speaker ({mi}), another bunch (not ne=
cessarily separate) who directly or vicariously hear the speech ({do}), and=
 a third group not directly involved in the speech act ({ko'a} and just abo=
ut everything else).=A0=20
In the event being spoken about any or all of these groups (or parts of the=
m) may be involved and they may be referred to by the designations derived =
from their speech-act roles: {mi + do}, {mi + ko'a}, {do + ko'a} and {mi + =
do + ko'a},=A0 in various abbreviated forms.
On a standard Lojban assumption (at least since xorlo achieved its final fo=
rm), the simplest such forms refer to the united bunches.=A0 The question o=
f how those bunches satisfy the predicates involved is left to context or a=
 demand for clarification.
Toward clarification, then, we have a different forms for when the bunch sa=
tisfies the predicate distributively (individually, more or less) and when =
it satisfies it collectively (as a mass, ditto).=A0=20
As a side note, the English (and perhaps many other languages') "we", does =
not correspond directly to any of these things, since it is distinctly plur=
al (unlike {mi}) and may include or exclude any number of others.
So, aside from the general point that the issue of how a bunch of things sa=
tisfies a predicate ought to be a question about how to ark a predicate rat=
her than how to mark an argument, what is the issue here?=A0 Apparently, it=
 is that the system is defective in not covering all the possibilities of r=
epresenting these combinations of bunches as individuals and masses.=A0 But=
 why do we care about that?=A0 We do have ways of doing that for descriptio=
ns, but rarely use them (and often with proper trepidation, since often wro=
ngly).=A0 Why worry about a similar shortage in pronouns (why not rather wo=
rry about the maount of cmavo space burned up in these efforts)?
BTW, "ambiguity" and "vagueness" are quite different notions, and calling t=
he one a form of the other just muddies already rather murk waters.


________________________________
 From: Felipe Gon=E7alves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com=20
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] "we" and masses. A bug in the CLL?
=20

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=A0 it should be=A0 {ro mi'o bevri} vs. {lu'o mi'o bevri}=
=A0 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.

--=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.


--1009959307-1796515200-1371405876=:998
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html><body><div style=3D"color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:ti=
mes new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt">After slogging throug=
h this long and repetitive thread, I find I have lost what the point was.&n=
bsp; To help guiding my understanding, I summarize the present situation as=
 I understand it.<br>In a given speech situation there is are a bunch (mayb=
e only one) of people speaking or being represented by the speaker ({mi}), =
another bunch (not necessarily separate) who directly or vicariously hear t=
he speech ({do}), and a third group not directly involved in the speech act=
 ({ko'a} and just about everything else).&nbsp; <br>In the event being spok=
en about any or all of these groups (or parts of them) may be involved and =
they may be referred to by the designations derived from their speech-act r=
oles: {mi + do}, {mi + ko'a}, {do + ko'a} and {mi + do + ko'a},&nbsp; in va=
rious abbreviated forms.<br>On a standard Lojban assumption (at least
 since xorlo achieved its final form), the simplest such forms refer to the=
 united bunches.&nbsp; The question of how those bunches satisfy the predic=
ates involved is left to context or a demand for clarification.<br>Toward c=
larification, then, we have a different forms for when the bunch satisfies =
the predicate distributively (individually, more or less) and when it satis=
fies it collectively (as a mass, ditto).&nbsp; <br>As a side note, the Engl=
ish (and perhaps many other languages') "we", does not correspond directly =
to any of these things, since it is distinctly plural (unlike {mi}) and may=
 include or exclude any number of others.<br>So, aside from the general poi=
nt that the issue of how a bunch of things satisfies a predicate ought to b=
e a question about how to ark a predicate rather than how to mark an argume=
nt, what is the issue here?&nbsp; Apparently, it is that the system is defe=
ctive in not covering all the possibilities of representing these
 combinations of bunches as individuals and masses.&nbsp; But why do we car=
e about that?&nbsp; We do have ways of doing that for descriptions, but rar=
ely use them (and often with proper trepidation, since often wrongly).&nbsp=
; Why worry about a similar shortage in pronouns (why not rather worry abou=
t the maount of cmavo space burned up in these efforts)?<br>BTW, "ambiguity=
" and "vagueness" are quite different notions, and calling the one a form o=
f the other just muddies already rather murk waters.<br><div><span><br></sp=
an></div><div><br></div>  <div style=3D"font-family: times new roman, new y=
ork, times, serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div style=3D"font-family: times new =
roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div dir=3D"ltr"> <hr siz=
e=3D"1">  <font face=3D"Arial" size=3D"2"> <b><span style=3D"font-weight:bo=
ld;">From:</span></b> Felipe Gon=E7alves Assis &lt;felipeg.assis@gmail.com&=
gt;<br> <b><span style=3D"font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> lojban@googleg=
roups.com
 <br> <b><span style=3D"font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Sunday, June 1=
6, 2013 11:52 AM<br> <b><span style=3D"font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span><=
/b> Re: [lojban] "we" and masses. A bug in the CLL?<br> </font> </div> <div=
 class=3D"y_msg_container"><br>
With respect to the ambiguous "we":<br>The Tupi language, spoken by Brazili=
an Indians, is an example of a<br>language that has three distinct "we"s:<b=
r> * "=EEand=E9", corresponding to {mi'o}<br> * "ore", corresponding to {mi=
'a} or plural {mi}, and<br> * "as=E9", corresponding to {ma'a}.<br><br>You =
will have trouble arguing that the mandatory disambiguation is a<br>heavy b=
urden on the speaker. The concept of {do} is very clear on<br>one's mind, a=
nd so, the distinction of {mi'o} vs. {mi'a} vs. {ma'a},<br>regardless of hi=
s mother tongue.<br><br>And what about "you", which is ambiguous between {d=
o} and {do'a} (even<br>when plural)?<br><br>With respect to {joi} vs. {jo'u=
}:<br>I guess this is part of the post-xorlo phenomenon of avoiding masses<=
br>where unnecessary. I am particularly pro {jo'u}, which is simple and<br>=
general. Anyway, such a change would be for CLL 2.0...<br><br>mu'o<br>mi'e =
.asiz.<br><br>On 16 June 2013 02:11, la arxokuna &lt;<a
 ymailto=3D"mailto:gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com" href=3D"mailto:gleki.is.my.n=
ame@gmail.com">gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>&gt; First let =
me show an extract from the loglan dictionary.<br>&gt;<br>&gt; mio (p) we/u=
s/ourselves, in the "I/me and others independently" sense, the<br>&gt; 1st =
3rd person multiple variable. Equivalent to 'mi, e da'. Cf. mu/mo for<br>&g=
t; the "you and I/me" sense of we/us, and muu/muo for the "you and I and<br=
>&gt; others" sense of we/us.<br>&gt; mu (p) we/us/ourselves, in the "you a=
nd I/me jointly" sense, the 1st 2nd<br>&gt; person set variable. Equivalent=
 to 'mi ze tu'. Cf. mo for the "you and I/me<br>&gt; independently" sense o=
f we/us, miu/mio for the "I and others" sense of<br>&gt; we/us, and muu/muo=
 for the "you and I and others" sense of we/us.<br>&gt; miu (p) we/us/ourse=
lves, in the "I/me and others jointly" sense, the 1st 3rd<br>&gt; person se=
t variable. Equivalent to 'mi ze da'. Cf. mu/mo for the "you and<br>&gt;
 I/me" sense of we/us, and muu/muo for the "you and I and others" sense of<=
br>&gt; we/us.<br>&gt; mo (p) we/us/ourselves, in the "you and I/me indepen=
dently" sense, the 1st<br>&gt; 2nd person multiple variable. Equivalent to =
'mi, e tu'. Cf. mu for the "you<br>&gt; and I/me jointly" sense of we/us, m=
iu/mio for the "I and others" sense of<br>&gt; we/us, and muu/muo for the "=
you and I and others" sense of we/us.<br>&gt;<br>&gt; What one might notice=
 first is that there is no equivalent to "mio/miu"<br>&gt; which correspond=
s to English "we".<br>&gt;<br>&gt; "we" is defined in Wiktionary as "The sp=
eakers/writers, or the<br>&gt; speaker/writer and at least one other person=
." so the meaning is pretty<br>&gt; clear.<br>&gt; However, the CLL says "E=
nglish-speakers often suffer because they cannot<br>&gt; easily distinguish=
 =93mi'o=94 from =93mi'a=94" which is indeed true. I don't<br>&gt; understa=
nd why Lojban doesn't have "we" in the sense English,
 Chinese,<br>&gt; Russian, Arabic, Hindi and Spanish have it (although i su=
ggested mi'ai a few<br>&gt; days ago).<br>&gt;<br>&gt; Now to the main issu=
e. Even if we look at the remaining "mu/mo" we'll see<br>&gt; that Lojban h=
as only one of them.<br>&gt;<br>&gt; The CLL says (regarding KOhA3)<br>&gt;=
<br>&gt; "All of these pro-sumti represent masses. For example, =93mi'o=94 =
is the same as<br>&gt; =93mi joi do=94, the mass of me and you considered j=
ointly."<br>&gt; This means we can't talk say "Each of us carries the piano=
" vs. "We as a<br>&gt; mass carry the piano" as (at least what Randall Holm=
es says) a mass should<br>&gt; not be converted into the conjunction of its=
 component parts by any logical<br>&gt; operator because strictly speaking =
it shouldn't come with a privileged<br>&gt; partition<br>&gt;<br>&gt; Howev=
er, jvs has two definitions, the second one (by selpahi) defining<br>&gt; {=
mi'o} as "mi jo'u do" entered in December 2012. I don't remember
 any<br>&gt; discussions of this issue at that time.<br>&gt;<br>&gt; I don'=
t know if&nbsp; it should be&nbsp; {ro mi'o bevri} vs. {lu'o mi'o bevri}&nb=
sp; or {ro<br>&gt; lu'a mi'o bevri} vs. {lu'o mi'o bevri}.<br>&gt;<br>&gt; =
So should we change the CLL to say it means {jo'u}, not {joi}?<br>&gt;<br>&=
gt; --<br>&gt; You received this message because you are subscribed to the =
Google Groups<br>&gt; "lojban" group.<br>&gt; To unsubscribe from this grou=
p and stop receiving emails from it, send an<br>&gt; email to lojban+<a yma=
ilto=3D"mailto:unsubscribe@googlegroups.com" href=3D"mailto:unsubscribe@goo=
glegroups.com">unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>&gt; To post to this gr=
oup, send email to <a ymailto=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com" href=3D"ma=
ilto:lojban@googlegroups.com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>&gt; Visit th=
is group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.<br>&gt; For more options=
, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out"
 target=3D"_blank">https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br>&gt;<br=
>&gt;<br><br>-- <br>You received this message because you are subscribed to=
 the Google Groups "lojban" group.<br>To unsubscribe from this group and st=
op receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+<a ymailto=3D"mailto:u=
nsubscribe@googlegroups.com" href=3D"mailto:unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">u=
nsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>To post to this group, send email to <a=
 ymailto=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com" href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegro=
ups.com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>Visit this group at <a href=3D"htt=
p://groups.google.com/group/lojban" target=3D"_blank">http://groups.google.=
com/group/lojban</a>.<br>For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.=
google.com/groups/opt_out" target=3D"_blank">https://groups.google.com/grou=
ps/opt_out</a>.<br><br><br><br><br></div> </div> </div>  </div></body></htm=
l>

<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 />

--1009959307-1796515200-1371405876=:998--