Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 20:34:34 -0800 (PST)
From: guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <a337096c-d88e-4387-a3d7-9642195e72af@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <52F29ED8.1050607@gmx.de>
References: <CAN2DD_E0QBcidfV+rp=N+rW1YeYtOanugo172BbgwFmswA2-SA@mail.gmail.com> <52F26B9E.2090001@gmx.de> <5e023b9a-515c-432b-a389-8f9af4766b51@googlegroups.com>
 <52F29ED8.1050607@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Individuals and xorlo
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_4757_26374497.1391661274071"
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

------=_Part_4757_26374497.1391661274071
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Le jeudi 6 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 05:28:08 UTC+9, selpa'i a =C3=A9crit :
>
> la .guskant. cu cusku di'e=20
> > Le mercredi 5 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 20:47:54 UTC+9, selpa'i a =C3=A9crit :=
=20
> >     If I may, Dan is asking why the unit {lo xanto} cannot be=20
> (implicitly)=20
> >     {lo ci xanto}, in which case three elephants would be counted as on=
e=20
> >     counting off by threes. Using a property in zilkancu3 would probabl=
y=20
> be=20
> >     clearer for that reason. As it stands, some people seem to think=20
> that=20
> >     the zilkancu3 unit contains a context-dependent inner quantifier,=
=20
> thus=20
> >     counting of by {xo'e mei}. I don't think that's the intended=20
> >     meaning, so=20
> >     it should be stated clearly that we're dealing with singletons.=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > If you mean simply "one-some" of a mass with the word "singleton", I=20
> > agree with you for English "explanation" of {lo PA broda}. As for Lojba=
n=20
> > "definition", I would rather support the current definition, and need a=
=20
> > Lojban definition of {kancu}, which is used in the definition of=20
> {zilkancu}.=20
>
> 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.=20
>
>

That's nice.=20
Although it will become out of topic, I have another suggestion related to=
=20
the BPFK page of gadri.

"Any term without an explicit outer quantifier is a constant" should be=20
changed to=20
"Any term without an explicit outer quantifier can be a constant",
because an usual predicate logic has an axiom on a constant c that "F(c)=20
{inaja} there is at least one (individual) x such that F(x)";
this means that the sentence "any term without an explicit outer quantifier=
=20
is a constant" automatically implicates an outer quantifier {su'o},
and it contradicts to xorlo itself that there are no default quantifiers.

Most general term, without quantifier, with no universe of discourse yet=20
defined, should be called "free variable".
Once a context is given, it defines an universe of discourse, then each=20
free variable in a sentence becomes a bound plural variable OR a constant=
=20
(not always a constant), then the truth value of the sentence is specified;=
=20
if a term denotes an individual, it can become a bound singular variable,=
=20
then an outer quantifier of Lojban is also available for the term.
The whole procedure depends on the context, and the language itself should=
=20
not define that a term is a constant.


=20

> > However, if you mean "individual" with the word "singleton", it is=20
> > better not to state it, because any mass, no matter if it is used as=20
> > collective or distributive, can be a unit "one-some" in some sense.=20
>
> 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.=20
>
>

I use the term "mass" as something in a domain of plural variable, saying=
=20
nothing about collectivity/distributivity.
I know BPFK and you use the term "mass" only for "collective mass", but I=
=20
think this usage is confusing for beginners, because:

1. CLL uses the term "mass" more generally, not always for collective mass;
2. the English word "mass" is too vague to be used as a technical term that=
=20
involving collectivity;
3. it is useful to define "mass" as follows:
"mass" =3Dca'e "something in a domain of plural variable";
"collective mass" =3Dca'e "mass that satisfies the predicate collectively";
"distributive mass" =3Dca'e "mass that satisfies the predicate=20
distributively".

If you suggest another short term for "something in a domain of plural=20
variable, saying nothing about collectivity/distributivity", I would=20
abandon my usage of "mass" in this meaning.


=20

> > An individual is defined as follows (based on Plural Predication by=20
> > Thomas McKay, 2006):=20
> >=20
> > "SUMTI is individual" =3Dca'e {RO DA poi ke'a me SUMTI zo'u SUMTI me DA=
}=20
> > where RO and DA are not a singular quantifier {ro} and a singular=20
> > variable {da} of Lojban, but a plural quantifier and a plural variable=
=20
> > respectively.=20
>
> Yes, that is exactly the definition of "individual" I am using.=20
>
> > If {zilkancu}_3 should be always an individual, {lo ckafi} is not an=20
> > individual in many cases of universe of discourse, and it cannot be=20
> > {zilkancu}_3.=20
>
> {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}.=20
>
> 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.=20
>


Yes, but whether {lo ckafi}, {lo prenu} etc. are individual or not depends=
=20
on epistemology, and the epistemology depends on the universe of discourse,=
=20
on the context.
It is not defined by Lojban.
=20

--=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.

------=_Part_4757_26374497.1391661274071
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><br>Le jeudi 6 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 05:28:08 UTC+9, selpa=
'i a =C3=A9crit&nbsp;:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;=
margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">la .gusk=
ant. cu cusku di'e
<br>&gt; Le mercredi 5 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 20:47:54 UTC+9, selpa'i a =C3=A9cr=
it :
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; If I may, Dan is asking why the unit {lo xanto} cann=
ot be (implicitly)
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; {lo ci xanto}, in which case three elephants would b=
e counted as one
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; counting off by threes. Using a property in zilkancu=
3 would probably be
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; clearer for that reason. As it stands, some people s=
eem to think that
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; the zilkancu3 unit contains a context-dependent inne=
r quantifier, thus
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; counting of by {xo'e mei}. I don't think that's the =
intended
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; meaning, so
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; it should be stated clearly that we're dealing with =
singletons.
<br>&gt;
<br>&gt;
<br>&gt; If you mean simply "one-some" of a mass with the word "singleton",=
 I
<br>&gt; agree with you for English "explanation" of {lo PA broda}. As for =
Lojban
<br>&gt; "definition", I would rather support the current definition, and n=
eed a
<br>&gt; Lojban definition of {kancu}, which is used in the definition of {=
zilkancu}.
<br>
<br>Right, I'm not proposing to change the definition. I only explained the=
=20
<br>reason for Dan's confusion. Making zilkancu (or kancu) clearer, would=
=20
<br>solve the problem, but it would also help to explicitly state (in=20
<br>English, for beginners) that in {lo PA broda}, we don't count by contex=
t=20
<br>dependent units. Counting off by {lo broda} is intended to mean that {l=
o=20
<br>ci broda} contains three individuals that each {broda}. This is what th=
e=20
<br>current definitions tries to say. It just wasn't clear enough for Dan o=
r=20
<br>la latro'a.
<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>That's nice.&nbsp;</div=
><div>Although it will become out of topic, I have another suggestion relat=
ed to the BPFK page of gadri.</div><div><br></div><div>"Any term without an=
 explicit outer quantifier is a constant" should be changed to&nbsp;</div><=
div>"Any term without an explicit outer quantifier can be a constant",</div=
><div>because an usual predicate logic has an axiom on a constant c that "F=
(c) {inaja} there is at least one (individual) x such that F(x)";</div><div=
>this means that the sentence "any term without an explicit outer quantifie=
r is a constant" automatically implicates an outer quantifier {su'o},</div>=
<div>and it contradicts to xorlo itself that there are no default quantifie=
rs.</div><div><br></div><div>Most general term, without quantifier, with no=
 universe of discourse yet defined, should be called "free variable".</div>=
<div>Once a context is given, it defines an universe of discourse, then eac=
h free variable in a sentence becomes a bound plural variable OR a constant=
 (not always a constant), then the truth value of the sentence is specified=
; if a term denotes an individual, it can become a bound singular variable,=
 then an outer quantifier of Lojban is also available for the term.</div><d=
iv>The whole procedure depends on the context, and the language itself shou=
ld not define that a term is a constant.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div=
><div>&nbsp;</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;marg=
in-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">&gt; However=
, if you mean "individual" with the word "singleton", it is
<br>&gt; better not to state it, because any mass, no matter if it is used =
as
<br>&gt; collective or distributive, can be a unit "one-some" in some sense=
.
<br>
<br>Once you have a mass, then that mass is a new individual altogether. Bu=
t=20
<br>a sumti like {mi'o} or {mi jo'u do} is not a mass, it's just two=20
<br>individuals together.
<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I use the term "mass" a=
s something in a domain of plural variable, saying nothing about collectivi=
ty/distributivity.</div><div>I know BPFK and you use the term "mass" only f=
or "collective mass", but I think this usage is confusing for beginners, be=
cause:</div><div><br></div><div>1. CLL uses the term "mass" more generally,=
 not always for collective mass;</div><div>2. the English word "mass" is to=
o vague to be used as a technical term that involving collectivity;</div><d=
iv>3. it is useful to define "mass" as follows:</div><div>"mass" =3Dca'e "s=
omething in a domain of plural variable";</div><div>"collective mass" =3Dca=
'e "mass that satisfies the predicate collectively";</div><div>"distributiv=
e mass" =3Dca'e "mass that satisfies the predicate distributively".</div><d=
iv><br></div><div>If you suggest another short term for "something in a dom=
ain of plural variable, saying nothing about collectivity/distributivity", =
I would abandon my usage of "mass" in this meaning.</div><div><br></div><di=
v><br></div><div><br></div><div>&nbsp;</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quot=
e" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;paddin=
g-left: 1ex;">&gt; An individual is defined as follows (based on Plural Pre=
dication by
<br>&gt; Thomas McKay, 2006):
<br>&gt;
<br>&gt; "SUMTI is individual" =3Dca'e {RO DA poi ke'a me SUMTI zo'u SUMTI =
me DA}
<br>&gt; where RO and DA are not a singular quantifier {ro} and a singular
<br>&gt; variable {da} of Lojban, but a plural quantifier and a plural vari=
able
<br>&gt; respectively.
<br>
<br>Yes, that is exactly the definition of "individual" I am using.
<br>
<br>&gt; If {zilkancu}_3 should be always an individual, {lo ckafi} is not =
an
<br>&gt; individual in many cases of universe of discourse, and it cannot b=
e
<br>&gt; {zilkancu}_3.
<br>
<br>{lo ckafi} is an amount of coffee. If I have two separate amounts of=20
<br>coffee, then I can count them together {lo re ckafi}.
<br>
<br>I would still call {lo ckafi} an individual. Using a property in=20
<br>zilkancu3 has been suggested, so we either count by {lo ckafi} or {lo k=
a=20
<br>ckafi}. The thing that makes {lo pa ckafi} different from {lo pa prenu}=
=20
<br>is that splitting {lo pa ckafi} will result in two new {lo ckafi},=20
<br>whereas splitting a person will just... kill it.
<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Yes, but whether {lo ckafi}=
, {lo prenu} etc. are individual or not depends on epistemology, and the ep=
istemology depends on the universe of discourse, on the context.</div><div>=
It is not defined by Lojban.</div><div>&nbsp;</div></div>

<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 />

------=_Part_4757_26374497.1391661274071--