Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 17:52:48 -0800 (PST)
From: jacfold.guskant@gmail.com
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <1bc97b10-cd6c-4f5c-b8aa-f0553aff5189@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <52F372FF.1000201@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> <a337096c-d88e-4387-a3d7-9642195e72af@googlegroups.com>
 <52F372FF.1000201@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_54_24848725.1391737968882"
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

------=_Part_54_24848725.1391737968882
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Le jeudi 6 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 20:33:19 UTC+9, selpa'i a =C3=A9crit :
>
> la .guskant. cu cusku di'e=20
> >     Once you have a mass, then that mass is a new individual altogether=
.=20
> >     But=20
> >     a sumti like {mi'o} or {mi jo'u do} is not a mass, it's just two=20
> >     individuals together.=20
> >=20
> > I use the term "mass" as something in a domain of plural variable,=20
> > saying nothing about collectivity/distributivity.=20
> > I know BPFK and you use the term "mass" only for "collective mass", but=
=20
> > I think this usage is confusing for beginners, because:=20
> >=20
> > 1. CLL uses the term "mass" more generally, not always for collective=
=20
> mass;=20
> > 2. the English word "mass" is too vague to be used as a technical term=
=20
> > that involving collectivity;=20
> > 3. it is useful to define "mass" as follows:=20
> > "mass" =3Dca'e "something in a domain of plural variable";=20
> > "collective mass" =3Dca'e "mass that satisfies the predicate=20
> collectively";=20
> > "distributive mass" =3Dca'e "mass that satisfies the predicate=20
> > distributively".=20
>
> The term "mass" is confusing exactly because it has been used to mean so=
=20
> many different things. I would avoid the term myself. However, whenever=
=20
> I say mass, I mean {gunma}.=20
>
> {lo gunma} is an individual, too. The referent of {lo gunma} is the=20
> "mass", not its members, which is the whole point of {gunma}. I also=20
> think that {gunma}'s semantics aren't very clear. We still don't have a=
=20
> definite answer on what properties a {gunma} has, how those properties=20
> are related to its members, and whether it can attain new properties,=20
> and which ones. For me, a {gunma} is a whole new entity, and it can be=20
> the value of a singular variable. There is also no question of=20
> distributivity with {gunma}, as it is just one thing (unless you have=20
> multiple {gunma}, in which case {lo PA gunma} is the same as any other=20
> {lo PA broda}, not specifying distributivity).=20
>
> > 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
>
> A term that I've been using, but which doesn't seem to be very=20
> wide-spread (yet?), is "individual-collection". Anything that can be=20
> expressed as {X jo'u Y jo'u Z ...} is an individual collection and is=20
> identical to a {lo broda} with those {jo'u}-connected referents.=20
>
> > Yes, but whether {lo ckafi}, {lo prenu} etc. are individual or not=20
> > depends on epistemology, and the epistemology depends on the universe o=
f=20
> > discourse, on the context.=20
> > It is not defined by Lojban.=20
>
> The way I see it, any {lo broda} is an individual (or an=20
> individual-collection). It doesn't matter what {broda} is. What kind of=
=20
> individuals there are in {lo broda} depends on {broda}, but they are=20
> still always individuals. There is no difference between {lo ckafi} and=
=20
> {lo prenu} in terms of individualness.=20
>


Do you still mean=20
"SUMTI is individual" =3Dca'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=20
universe of discourse, and reduces the flexibility of the language.

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=
=20
two persons {by} and {cy}, and satisfies {jmaji} collectively {je}=20
non-distributively, {jukpa} collectively {ja} distributively, {citka}=20
non-collectively {je} distributively. This {lo} cannot be replaced by {loi}=
=20
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=20
false, so this {lo prenu} is not individual.
It is still possible that you don't include {by} and {cy} in your universe=
=20
of discourse and say that {lo prenu} is individual, but it is your=20
epistemology, and not defined by the language.

=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_54_24848725.1391737968882
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 20:33:19 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; &nbsp; &nbsp; Once you have a mass, then that mass is a new indivi=
dual altogether.
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; But
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; a sumti like {mi'o} or {mi jo'u do} is not a mass, i=
t's just two
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; individuals together.
<br>&gt;
<br>&gt; I use the term "mass" as something in a domain of plural variable,
<br>&gt; saying nothing about collectivity/distributivity.
<br>&gt; I know BPFK and you use the term "mass" only for "collective mass"=
, but
<br>&gt; I think this usage is confusing for beginners, because:
<br>&gt;
<br>&gt; 1. CLL uses the term "mass" more generally, not always for collect=
ive mass;
<br>&gt; 2. the English word "mass" is too vague to be used as a technical =
term
<br>&gt; that involving collectivity;
<br>&gt; 3. it is useful to define "mass" as follows:
<br>&gt; "mass" =3Dca'e "something in a domain of plural variable";
<br>&gt; "collective mass" =3Dca'e "mass that satisfies the predicate colle=
ctively";
<br>&gt; "distributive mass" =3Dca'e "mass that satisfies the predicate
<br>&gt; distributively".
<br>
<br>The term "mass" is confusing exactly because it has been used to mean s=
o=20
<br>many different things. I would avoid the term myself. However, whenever=
=20
<br>I say mass, I mean {gunma}.
<br>
<br>{lo gunma} is an individual, too. The referent of {lo gunma} is the=20
<br>"mass", not its members, which is the whole point of {gunma}. I also=20
<br>think that {gunma}'s semantics aren't very clear. We still don't have a=
=20
<br>definite answer on what properties a {gunma} has, how those properties=
=20
<br>are related to its members, and whether it can attain new properties,=
=20
<br>and which ones. For me, a {gunma} is a whole new entity, and it can be=
=20
<br>the value of a singular variable. There is also no question of=20
<br>distributivity with {gunma}, as it is just one thing (unless you have=
=20
<br>multiple {gunma}, in which case {lo PA gunma} is the same as any other=
=20
<br>{lo PA broda}, not specifying distributivity).
<br>
<br>&gt; If you suggest another short term for "something in a domain of pl=
ural
<br>&gt; variable, saying nothing about collectivity/distributivity", I wou=
ld
<br>&gt; abandon my usage of "mass" in this meaning.
<br>
<br>A term that I've been using, but which doesn't seem to be very=20
<br>wide-spread (yet?), is "individual-collection". Anything that can be=20
<br>expressed as {X jo'u Y jo'u Z ...} is an individual collection and is=
=20
<br>identical to a {lo broda} with those {jo'u}-connected referents.
<br>
<br>&gt; Yes, but whether {lo ckafi}, {lo prenu} etc. are individual or not
<br>&gt; depends on epistemology, and the epistemology depends on the unive=
rse of
<br>&gt; discourse, on the context.
<br>&gt; It is not defined by Lojban.
<br>
<br>The way I see it, any {lo broda} is an individual (or an=20
<br>individual-collection). It doesn't matter what {broda} is. What kind of=
=20
<br>individuals there are in {lo broda} depends on {broda}, but they are=20
<br>still always individuals. There is no difference between {lo ckafi} and=
=20
<br>{lo prenu} in terms of individualness.
<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Do you still=
 mean&nbsp;</div><div>"SUMTI is individual" =3Dca'e {RO DA poi ke'a me SUMT=
I zo'u SUMTI me DA}</div><div>with the term "individual"?</div><div><br></d=
iv><div>If so, keeping {lo broda} to be individual requires attentiveness o=
n the universe of discourse, and reduces the flexibility of the language.</=
div><div><br></div><div>Let me give an example.</div><div><br></div><div>lo=
 prenu cu jmaji gi'e jukpa gi'e citka</div><div><br></div><div>I want to me=
an 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} di=
stributively. This {lo} cannot be replaced by {loi} because I want it to sa=
tisfy a selbri non-collectively.</div><div><br></div><div>For this {lo pren=
u}, {by me lo prenu} is true, but {lo prenu me by} is false, so this {lo pr=
enu} is not individual.</div><div>It is still possible that you don't inclu=
de {by} and {cy} in your universe of discourse and say that {lo prenu} is i=
ndividual, but it is your epistemology, and not defined by the language.</d=
iv><div><br></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_54_24848725.1391737968882--