Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.15.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.15.18;
Message-ID: <52F29ED8.1050607@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 21:28:08 +0100
From: selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Individuals and xorlo
References: <CAN2DD_E0QBcidfV+rp=N+rW1YeYtOanugo172BbgwFmswA2-SA@mail.gmail.com> <52F26B9E.2090001@gmx.de> <5e023b9a-515c-432b-a389-8f9af4766b51@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <5e023b9a-515c-432b-a389-8f9af4766b51@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=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

la .guskant. cu cusku di'e
> Le mercredi 5 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 20:47:54 UTC+9, selpa'i a =C3=A9crit :
>     If I may, Dan is asking why the unit {lo xanto} cannot be (implicitly=
)
>     {lo ci xanto}, in which case three elephants would be counted as one
>     counting off by threes. Using a property in zilkancu3 would probably =
be
>     clearer for that reason. As it stands, some people seem to think that
>     the zilkancu3 unit contains a context-dependent inner quantifier, thu=
s
>     counting of by {xo'e mei}. I don't think that's the intended
>     meaning, so
>     it should be stated clearly that we're dealing with singletons.
>
>
> If you mean simply "one-some" of a mass with the word "singleton", I
> agree with you for English "explanation" of {lo PA broda}. As for Lojban
> "definition", I would rather support the current definition, and need a
> Lojban definition of {kancu}, which is used in the definition of {zilkanc=
u}.

Right, I'm not proposing to change the definition. I only explained the=20
reason for Dan's confusion. Making zilkancu (or kancu) clearer, would=20
solve the problem, but it would also help to explicitly state (in=20
English, for beginners) that in {lo PA broda}, we don't count by context=20
dependent units. Counting off by {lo broda} is intended to mean that {lo=20
ci broda} contains three individuals that each {broda}. This is what the=20
current definitions tries to say. It just wasn't clear enough for Dan or=20
la latro'a.

> However, if you mean "individual" with the word "singleton", it is
> better not to state it, because any mass, no matter if it is used as
> collective or distributive, can be a unit "one-some" in some sense.

Once you have a mass, then that mass is a new individual altogether. But=20
a sumti like {mi'o} or {mi jo'u do} is not a mass, it's just two=20
individuals together.

> An individual is defined as follows (based on Plural Predication by
> Thomas McKay, 2006):
>
> "SUMTI is individual" =3Dca'e {RO DA poi ke'a me SUMTI zo'u SUMTI me DA}
> where RO and DA are not a singular quantifier {ro} and a singular
> variable {da} of Lojban, but a plural quantifier and a plural variable
> respectively.

Yes, that is exactly the definition of "individual" I am using.

> If {zilkancu}_3 should be always an individual, {lo ckafi} is not an
> individual in many cases of universe of discourse, and it cannot be
> {zilkancu}_3.

{lo ckafi} is an amount of coffee. If I have two separate amounts of=20
coffee, then I can count them together {lo re ckafi}.

I would still call {lo ckafi} an individual. Using a property in=20
zilkancu3 has been suggested, so we either count by {lo ckafi} or {lo ka=20
ckafi}. The thing that makes {lo pa ckafi} different from {lo pa prenu}=20
is that splitting {lo pa ckafi} will result in two new {lo ckafi},=20
whereas splitting a person will just... kill it.

> However, {lo ckafi} can be naturally a unit:
> {mi cpedu tu'a lo pa ckafi} =3D {mi cpedu tu'a zo'e noi ke'a ckafi gi'e
> zilkancu li pa lo ckafi}

Certainly.

> This flexibility of {zilkancu}_3, the unit, is advantage of xorlo, and
> indispensable for keeping expressiveness of Lojban.

I don't think anyone is trying to remove flexible units.

mi'e la selpa'i mu'o

--=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.