Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.15.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.15.19;
Message-ID: <52F576E8.1010907@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 01:14:32 +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> <52F4CA09.4090004@gmx.de> <bf909bda-6ab0-428f-8976-fe8fd011da9a@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <bf909bda-6ab0-428f-8976-fe8fd011da9a@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 vendredi 7 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 20:56:57 UTC+9, selpa'i a =C3=A9crit :
>     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 th=
at
>     {lo broda} must be singular, it only means that whether or not it is
>     plural, the only referents it has are individuals.
>
>
>
> OK, now I understand what you meant.
> However, I don't agree to calling {lo broda} "an individual" or "a
> collection of individual" for two reasons.
>
> 1. There is no guarantee that "something in a domain of plural variable,
> saying nothing about collectivity/distributivity (SDPV)" is always "an
> individual" or "a collection of individual".

What else is a possible referent? Can you name anything that isn't an=20
individual (or more than one individual)? Are we using different senses=20
of the word?

> 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.

I don't understand this point.

> Regarding SDPV as "an individual" or "a collection of individual" is
> atomism, and should not be forced by the language.

I'm not sure what is being forced here. I cannot think of anything that=20
is in the DPV that is not an individual.

> 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 different from that of a set, such a risk
> should be avoided.

Does "collection" really remind you of set-theory? That's certainly not=20
the direction I was going for with the term. Maybe having no term at all=20
is better. We could just go back to saying "one or more individuals".

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.