Received: from mail-yk0-f183.google.com ([209.85.160.183]:56770) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1WBvM3-0007tY-JR for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 16:01:18 -0800 Received: by mail-yk0-f183.google.com with SMTP id 142sf236015ykq.0 for ; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 16:01:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=A29U5liUY7syFC3gtiIAMo5yHau99eQ1UBU81GAnMNs=; b=N1T2v9EYOKsfRHgEP0SuO/wSkNN360rUn+qMeBpte7yKc7zUATu2yvF2/phGbtGm90 et2VLv1pAVJg+659xWrKMA5wc3RaVkcH/Qooj3vAK67gWaL/VQsrdLIbwtQCoLOCU8T1 e3lu9XNxZ0wfLnYqRSIaVzYiVFkSjT667njYvaXeCj1kCRUAC6FT0jmSMLsNEn8GwHe6 hWW+ROYD7GIeWMdTuRKvn/R+41PuLQ5YLWraNZmhLW15fLWLQe86sENIx1W8DUS3UuzB GtM+xFn5BWCyYaHHo6yN6AwU4dZXRHafqYs6F15OyTtKUbfSGPTfRrqJJXZlovTKcZ0A Yn4A== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=A29U5liUY7syFC3gtiIAMo5yHau99eQ1UBU81GAnMNs=; b=XauXZtXnPFP4UYgo+gdL6/0Tr7eRGyW5a3NN0Zn6p4jXSvLmX1fTfSsLSpfuXgZqpa kDlITISEa0Ink9ggQhBGDYfArUgQ3UATtVa0syX1TR1SZEK72j3eCEFMKJm2ixgsMr4n MXEXI+pJ2oa4vR9zXUXFJHdhLpI+gKPbvZn0b7RVz4dEfW4AdpAQC6WKJnJ00+88naxj W9jrOywtmV/fzNbuDJvFzPEF3VN7djntzD7fgTcQBkicJNNpAMPKqIYkbWzwQ6jKR5a6 Tw0Yy/8TT3mzE/hsji9alNIgHeSDWgk+DigRUP/Y9MwvblF5vMhJryzSVqqjqQ3woADT Q2CQ== X-Received: by 10.50.114.70 with SMTP id je6mr59633igb.5.1391817661294; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 16:01:01 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.50.124.70 with SMTP id mg6ls924545igb.3.canary; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 16:01:00 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.50.2.8 with SMTP id 8mr59959igq.8.1391817660539; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 16:01:00 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 16:00:59 -0800 (PST) From: guskant To: lojban@googlegroups.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <52F4CA09.4090004@gmx.de> References: <52F26B9E.2090001@gmx.de> <5e023b9a-515c-432b-a389-8f9af4766b51@googlegroups.com> <52F29ED8.1050607@gmx.de> <52F372FF.1000201@gmx.de> <8719cd89-816c-43a6-8d96-02c3b8a08e3e@googlegroups.com> <52F4CA09.4090004@gmx.de> Subject: Re: [lojban] Individuals and xorlo MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: gusni.kantu@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_1262_27824643.1391817659215" X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / ------=_Part_1262_27824643.1391817659215 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Le vendredi 7 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 20:56:57 UTC+9, selpa'i a =C3=A9crit : > > la .guskant. cu cusku di'e=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 kin= d=20 > of=20 > > individuals there are in {lo broda} depends on {broda}, but they ar= e=20 > > still always individuals. There is no difference between {lo ckafi}= =20 > and=20 > > {lo prenu} in terms of individualness.=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > Do you still mean=20 > > "SUMTI is individual" =3Dca'e {RO DA poi ke'a me SUMTI zo'u SUMTI me DA= }=20 > > with the term "individual"?=20 > >=20 > > If so, keeping {lo broda} to be individual requires attentiveness on th= e=20 > > universe of discourse, and reduces the flexibility of the language.=20 > > Note that I said "is an individual or an individual-collection". That=20 > is, {lo broda} can refer to one individual or to multiple individuals,=20 > but we are always dealing in terms of individuals. It doesn't mean that= =20 > {lo broda} must be singular, it only means that whether or not it is=20 > plural, the only referents it has are individuals.=20 > OK, now I understand what you meant. However, I don't agree to calling {lo broda} "an individual" or "a=20 collection of individual" for two reasons. 1. There is no guarantee that "something in a domain of plural variable,=20 saying nothing about collectivity/distributivity (SDPV)" is always "an=20 individual" or "a collection of individual". An individual is only a=20 special case of SDPV. Lojban should not force a speaker to have an=20 individual of {lo sidbo}, for example, in the universe of discourse.=20 Regarding SDPV as "an individual" or "a collection of individual" is=20 atomism, and should not be forced by the language. 2. Calling {lo broda} "an individual" or "a collection of individual" may= =20 let a beginner think of set theory. In order to make clear that the concept= =20 of SDPV is completely different from that of a set, such a risk should be= =20 avoided. =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_1262_27824643.1391817659215 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Le vendredi 7 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 20:56:57 UTC+9, se= lpa'i a =C3=A9crit :
la .g= uskant. cu cusku di'e
>     The way I see it, any {lo broda} is an individual (o= r an
>     individual-collection). It doesn't matter what {brod= a} is. What kind of
>     individuals there are in {lo broda} depends on {brod= a}, but they are
>     still always individuals. There is no difference bet= ween {lo ckafi} and
>     {lo prenu} in terms of individualness.
>
>
>
> Do you still mean
> "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
> universe of discourse, and reduces the flexibility of the language= .

Note that I said "is an individual or an individual-collection". That= =20
is, {lo broda} can refer to one individual or to multiple individuals,= =20
but we are always dealing in terms of individuals. It doesn't mean that= =20
{lo broda} must be singular, it only means that whether or not it is=20
plural, the only referents it has are individuals.


OK, now I understand what y= ou meant.
However, I don't agree to calling {lo broda} "an indivi= dual" or "a collection of individual" for two reasons.

=
1. There is no guarantee that "something in a domain of plural variabl= e, saying nothing about collectivity/distributivity (SDPV)" is always "an i= ndividual" or "a collection of individual". An individual is only a special= case of SDPV. Lojban should not force a speaker to have an individual of {= lo sidbo}, for example, in the universe of discourse. Regarding SDPV as "an= individual" or "a collection of individual" is atomism, and should not be = forced by the language.

2. Calling {lo broda} "an = individual" or "a collection of individual" may let a beginner think of set= theory. In order to make clear that the concept of SDPV is completely diff= erent from that of a set, such a risk should be avoided.
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;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_1262_27824643.1391817659215--