Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 07:20:01 -0800 (PST)
From: guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <3c75656f-21aa-402d-90e1-b49bce59770f@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <52F576E8.1010907@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> <8719cd89-816c-43a6-8d96-02c3b8a08e3e@googlegroups.com> <52F4CA09.4090004@gmx.de> <bf909bda-6ab0-428f-8976-fe8fd011da9a@googlegroups.com>
 <52F576E8.1010907@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_790_26312880.1391872801070"
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

------=_Part_790_26312880.1391872801070
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Le samedi 8 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 09:14:32 UTC+9, selpa'i a =C3=A9crit :
>
> la .guskant. cu cusku di'e=20
> > Le vendredi 7 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 20:56:57 UTC+9, selpa'i a =C3=A9crit :=
=20
> >     Note that I said "is an individual or an individual-collection".=20
> That=20
> >     is, {lo broda} can refer to one individual or to multiple=20
> individuals,=20
> >     but we are always dealing in terms of individuals. It doesn't mean=
=20
> that=20
> >     {lo broda} must be singular, it only means that whether or not it i=
s=20
> >     plural, the only referents it has are individuals.=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > OK, now I understand what you meant.=20
> > However, I don't agree to calling {lo broda} "an individual" or "a=20
> > collection of individual" for two reasons.=20
> >=20
> > 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".=20
>
> 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?=20
>
> > 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
>
> I don't understand this point.=20
>
> > Regarding SDPV as "an individual" or "a collection of individual" is=20
> > atomism, and should not be forced by the language.=20
>
> 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.=20
>
>

SDPV is first given, and then "individual" is defined using it. When a=20
universe of discourse is given, there is no need that SDPV is finally=20
separated into individual pieces. Having SDPV without individual pieces in=
=20
the universe of discourse should be permitted. I will discuss it also in=20
the next post as response to la xorxes.


=20

> > 2. Calling {lo broda} "an individual" or "a collection of individual"=
=20
> > may let a beginner think of set theory. In order to make clear that the=
=20
> > concept of SDPV is completely different from that of a set, such a risk=
=20
> > should be avoided.=20
>
> 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".=20
>


Yes, and I will discuss it also in the next post.
=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_790_26312880.1391872801070
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><br>Le samedi 8 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 09:14:32 UTC+9, selp=
a'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 .gus=
kant. cu cusku di'e
<br>&gt; Le vendredi 7 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 20:56:57 UTC+9, selpa'i a =C3=A9cr=
it :
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; Note that I said "is an individual or an individual-=
collection". That
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; is, {lo broda} can refer to one individual or to mul=
tiple individuals,
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; but we are always dealing in terms of individuals. I=
t doesn't mean that
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; {lo broda} must be singular, it only means that whet=
her or not it is
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; plural, the only referents it has are individuals.
<br>&gt;
<br>&gt;
<br>&gt;
<br>&gt; OK, now I understand what you meant.
<br>&gt; However, I don't agree to calling {lo broda} "an individual" or "a
<br>&gt; collection of individual" for two reasons.
<br>&gt;
<br>&gt; 1. There is no guarantee that "something in a domain of plural var=
iable,
<br>&gt; saying nothing about collectivity/distributivity (SDPV)" is always=
 "an
<br>&gt; individual" or "a collection of individual".
<br>
<br>What else is a possible referent? Can you name anything that isn't an=
=20
<br>individual (or more than one individual)? Are we using different senses=
=20
<br>of the word?
<br>
<br>&gt; An individual is only a
<br>&gt; special case of SDPV. Lojban should not force a speaker to have an
<br>&gt; individual of {lo sidbo}, for example, in the universe of discours=
e.
<br>
<br>I don't understand this point.
<br>
<br>&gt; Regarding SDPV as "an individual" or "a collection of individual" =
is
<br>&gt; atomism, and should not be forced by the language.
<br>
<br>I'm not sure what is being forced here. I cannot think of anything that=
=20
<br>is in the DPV that is not an individual.
<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>SDPV is first given, an=
d then "individual" is defined using it. When a universe of discourse is gi=
ven, there is no need that SDPV is finally separated into individual pieces=
. Having SDPV without individual pieces in the universe of discourse should=
 be permitted. I will discuss it also in the next post as response to la xo=
rxes.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>&nbsp;</div><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #cc=
c solid;padding-left: 1ex;">&gt; 2. Calling {lo broda} "an individual" or "=
a collection of individual"
<br>&gt; may let a beginner think of set theory. In order to make clear tha=
t the
<br>&gt; concept of SDPV is completely different from that of a set, such a=
 risk
<br>&gt; should be avoided.
<br>
<br>Does "collection" really remind you of set-theory? That's certainly not=
=20
<br>the direction I was going for with the term. Maybe having no term at al=
l=20
<br>is better. We could just go back to saying "one or more individuals".
<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Yes, and I will discuss it =
also in the next post.</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_790_26312880.1391872801070--