Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.17.21 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.17.21;
Message-ID: <52F4CA09.4090004@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 12:56:57 +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> <52F29ED8.1050607@gmx.de> <a337096c-d88e-4387-a3d7-9642195e72af@googlegroups.com> <52F372FF.1000201@gmx.de> <8719cd89-816c-43a6-8d96-02c3b8a08e3e@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <8719cd89-816c-43a6-8d96-02c3b8a08e3e@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
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

la .guskant. cu cusku di'e
>     The way I see it, any {lo broda} is an individual (or an
>     individual-collection). It doesn't matter what {broda} is. What kind of
>     individuals there are in {lo broda} depends on {broda}, but they are
>     still always individuals. There is no difference between {lo ckafi} and
>     {lo prenu} in terms of individualness.
>
>
>
> Do you still mean
> "SUMTI is individual" =ca'e {RO DA poi ke'a me SUMTI zo'u SUMTI me DA}
> with the term "individual"?
>
> If so, keeping {lo broda} to be individual requires attentiveness on the
> universe of discourse, and reduces the flexibility of the language.

Note that I said "is an individual or an individual-collection". That 
is, {lo broda} can refer to one individual or to multiple individuals, 
but we are always dealing in terms of individuals. It doesn't mean that 
{lo broda} must be singular, it only means that whether or not it is 
plural, the only referents it has are individuals.

> Let me give an example.
>
> lo prenu cu jmaji gi'e jukpa gi'e citka
>
> I want to mean with this sentence that this {lo prenu} consists of at
> least two persons {by} and {cy}, and satisfies {jmaji} collectively {je}
> non-distributively, {jukpa} collectively {ja} distributively, {citka}
> non-collectively {je} distributively. This {lo} cannot be replaced by
> {loi} because I want it to satisfy a selbri non-collectively.
>
> For this {lo prenu}, {by me lo prenu} is true, but {lo prenu me by} is
> false, so this {lo prenu} is not individual.

Correct, because this {lo prenu} has two referents, both of which are 
individuals. {lo prenu} itself is not an individual, but its referents 
are individuals.

Your example sentence is perfectly fine.

mi'e la selpa'i mu'o


-- 
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.