Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.15.15 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.15.15;
Message-ID: <51BEBACC.7090706@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 09:29:16 +0200
From: selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] "we" and masses. A bug in the CLL?
References: <8561d566-8f8b-4b46-9e7b-5fdbc1367b33@googlegroups.com> <51BDBA1D.80602@gmx.de> <CA+gZtgKULyTpGdDYwykN0H6bkUQJEVpoCSN=+PwCO4toXA+tGA@mail.gmail.com> <51BE419F.4090806@gmx.de> <1371434761.19218.YahooMailNeo@web184405.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <1371434761.19218.YahooMailNeo@web184405.mail.bf1.yahoo.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=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

la .pycyn. cu cusku di'e
> I'm still finding this confusing, probably partly from Lojban
> terminology. mi'o is apparently the union of mi and do, written {mi
> jo'e do}?,

Not a union, since {mi} and {do} aren't sets in the Lojban {lo'i}-sense.
So, not {jo'e}, but {jo'u}, which creates a "group" like a {lo}-sumti.

{mi jo'u do}

> without comment about how they interact with properties.  To say, {ro
> mi'o}then says that they interact distributively and completely and
> thus amount to {ro mi e ro do}, as noted.  Of course, other
> quantifiers would not break down so easily {su'o mi'o} is surely
> {su'o mi a su'o do} but nothing else works (well, {no ... e...}).

Well, of course it's {su'o mi .a su'o do}. {su'o} corresponds to {.a},
and {ro} to {.e}, that's why the two expressions have different expansions.

However, a more general way to write either expression is:

	PA mi'o
=	PA da poi ke'a me mi'o
=	PA da poi ke'a me mi jo'u do

Thus:

	ro mi'o
=	ro da poi ke'a me mi jo'u do
	"For all X such that X is among the group of me and you."
	"Everything that is among the group of me and you."

and

	su'o mi'o
=	su'o da poi ke'a me mi jo'u do
	"There exists some X such that X is among the group of me and you."
	"At least one thing that is among the group of you and me."

The basic point is that:

	mi .e do me mi jo'u do

> I don't get the point about {mio}, largely because I don't quite see
> what it is supposed to be (it isn't given anywhere and doesn't appear
> to be Lojban).

"mio" is one of the loglan words for "we". It appeared earlier in this
thread. I deliberately avoided the curly {}-quotes to set it apart from
the Lojban words, else it really does look like a typo.

Definition of "mio" (which does *not* correspond to {mi'o}):
> mio (p) we/us/ourselves, in the "I/me and others independently"
> sense, the 1st 3rd person multiple variable. Equivalent to 'mi, e
> da'.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

-- 
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.