Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 68.230.241.213 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) client-ip=68.230.241.213;
Message-ID: <52F60ED3.2060401@lojban.org>
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 06:02:43 -0500
From: "Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG" <lojbab@lojban.org>
Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; 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> <PPxL1n00656Cr6M01PxMrr>
In-Reply-To: <PPxL1n00656Cr6M01PxMrr>
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: /

On 2/7/2014 6:56 AM, selpa'i wrote:
> 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.

Nora hasn't the time to read and consider this thread in depth, but she 
wonders whether the cmavo lu'a (and its relatives) doesn't resolve this 
issue.  At least it was intended that these words would resolve 
ambiguity between individuals and the mass(es) comprised of them.

lojbab

-- 
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.