Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 19:31:24 -0800 (PST)
From: guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <56096dec-1969-420d-b4e5-b8539cbe0cc0@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <52F7A4D5.5070106@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> <CAO7tK2fqC3RQkHDE5unLx-z+5U4VU2nWempwEnzDAcpyB810pw@mail.gmail.com> <372dd8f1-1920-4afa-8d11-aa55696982a0@googlegroups.com> <CAO7tK2f+f5tebxR-eH5UAx8mkOJAaZnM3Es2syyOdcMHZpn0qw@mail.gmail.com> <03555bbd-cc44-426f-94ee-65d557f2d301@googlegroups.com> <CAO7tK2d1U9Z=ZJ6sPaP++huPE+zE_dCGqXsrJ80jk4c5M+Y_GQ@mail.gmail.com> <592497c0-5db5-420e-867f-8df1663eca27@googlegroups.com> <52F65A5C.90605@gmx.de> <348c23bf-6d9f-4a05-bfe7-69b141c03cb7@googlegroups.com> <52F776EE.6070406@gmx.de> <6ffd64d2-2e2c-4b83-8722-b7f262f5837a@googlegroups.com>
 <52F7A4D5.5070106@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_2902_33078397.1392003085196"
X-Spam_score: -0.8
X-Spam_score_int: -7
X-Spam_bar: /

------=_Part_2902_33078397.1392003085196
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Le lundi 10 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 00:55:01 UTC+9, selpa'i a =C3=A9crit :
>
> la .guskant. cu cusku di'e=20
> > Actually, I didn't need {lo mokca} in order to say that any {lo linji}=
=20
> > are not one or more individuals.=20
> > I mentioned {lo mokca} only for clarifying the structure of {lo linji},=
=20
> > but it was really unnecessary.=20
> > Only I need to say is that {lo linji xi ny me lo linji xi my} continues=
=20
> > infinitely in that universe of discourse.=20
> >=20
> > In other words, this is an infinite instance of {lo re prenu cu me lo m=
u=20
> > prenu}.=20
>
> I'm not sure I follow.=20
>
> Let's say the original single line segment L looks like this:=20
>
> |-----------------------------------------------|   <- {lo linji}=20
>                          L=20
>
> You seem to be saying that L is not an individual because we can turn it=
=20
> into multiple smaller line segments A, B, C, like this:=20
>
> |---------------| |---------------| |---------------|=20
>          A                 B                 C=20
>
> Further, you seem to be saying that A, B, and C are all among L. You=20
> also seem to be saying that each of A, B, C are not individuals either,=
=20
> because we can further split them, like this:=20
>
> |-------|-------| |-------|-------| |-------|-------|=20
>      M       N         O       P         Q       R=20
>
> And that M and N are among A, and so on.=20
>
> Is this what you are saying?=20
>
>

Yes.


=20

> I would say that the only line segment that is among L is L itself. A is=
=20
> not among L, nor are B or C, let alone M, N, O, ...=20
>
> A, B and C are *part* of L. M is *part* of A.=20
>
>

Such a universe of discourse is of course natural and possible, but the=20
universe of discourse given here is based on another epistemology that {lo=
=20
linji xi ny cu me lo linji xi my} behaves just like {lo re prenu cu me lo=
=20
mu prenu}. The only difference is that {lo linji xi my} consists of=20
infinite {lo linji}, while {lo mu prenu} consists of finite {lo prenu}.=20
Such a universe of discourse is also possible under the condition that you=
=20
don't assert that
RO DA poi ke'a me lo linji zo'u lo linji me DA,
where RO DA is a quantified plural variable.


=20

> If you introduce new objects, then you are creating a new universe of=20
> discourse each time, so the original singular {lo linji} is no longer=20
> relevant. It seems like your {me} is jumping across domains.=20
>
>
=20

I did not introduce new objects. those infinite number of {lo linji} were=
=20
already prepared in the universe of discourse given first.=20

For example, in the case of finite {lo ci prenu}, let us call the three=20
persons p1, p2, p3. In the universe of discourse. The following sumti are=
=20
all in the domain of plural variable that are prenu even if you don't=20
mention the sumti:
p1
p2
p3
p1 jo'u p2
p2 jo'u p3
p3 jo'u p1
p1 jo'u p2 jo'u p3

Similarly, the infinite number of {lo linji} were in the domain of plural=
=20
variable that are linji when the universe of discourse was given first.


Would you say that {lo sakta cu me lo najnimryjisra}? For me it would be=20
> a very definite No.=20
>


No, but the current topic is not similar to that but to {lo re prenu cu me=
=20
lo mu prenu}.
=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_2902_33078397.1392003085196
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><br>Le lundi 10 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 00:55:01 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; Actually, I didn't need {lo mokca} in order to say that any {lo li=
nji}
<br>&gt; are not one or more individuals.
<br>&gt; I mentioned {lo mokca} only for clarifying the structure of {lo li=
nji},
<br>&gt; but it was really unnecessary.
<br>&gt; Only I need to say is that {lo linji xi ny me lo linji xi my} cont=
inues
<br>&gt; infinitely in that universe of discourse.
<br>&gt;
<br>&gt; In other words, this is an infinite instance of {lo re prenu cu me=
 lo mu
<br>&gt; prenu}.
<br>
<br>I'm not sure I follow.
<br>
<br>Let's say the original single line segment L looks like this:
<br>
<br>|-----------------------------<wbr>------------------| &nbsp; &lt;- {lo=
 linji}
<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &=
nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;L
<br>
<br>You seem to be saying that L is not an individual because we can turn i=
t=20
<br>into multiple smaller line segments A, B, C, like this:
<br>
<br>|---------------| |---------------| |---------------|
<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;A &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; =
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; B &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nb=
sp; C
<br>
<br>Further, you seem to be saying that A, B, and C are all among L. You=20
<br>also seem to be saying that each of A, B, C are not individuals either,=
=20
<br>because we can further split them, like this:
<br>
<br>|-------|-------| |-------|-------| |-------|-------|
<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;M &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; N &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp=
; O &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; P &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Q &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbs=
p; R
<br>
<br>And that M and N are among A, and so on.
<br>
<br>Is this what you are saying?
<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Yes.</div><div><br></di=
v><div><br></div><div>&nbsp;</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: =
1ex;">I would say that the only line segment that is among L is L itself. A=
 is=20
<br>not among L, nor are B or C, let alone M, N, O, ...
<br>
<br>A, B and C are *part* of L. M is *part* of A.
<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Such a universe of disc=
ourse is of course natural and possible, but the universe of discourse give=
n here is based on another epistemology that {lo linji xi ny cu me lo linji=
 xi my} behaves just like {lo re prenu cu me lo mu prenu}. The only differe=
nce is that {lo linji xi my} consists of infinite {lo linji}, while {lo mu =
prenu} consists of finite {lo prenu}. Such a universe of discourse is also =
possible under the condition that you don't assert that</div><div>RO DA poi=
 ke'a me lo linji zo'u lo linji me DA,</div><div>where RO DA is a quantifie=
d plural variable.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>&nbsp;</div><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-=
left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">If you introduce new objects, then=
 you are creating a new universe of=20
<br>discourse each time, so the original singular {lo linji} is no longer=
=20
<br>relevant. It seems like your {me} is jumping across domains.
<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div>I did =
not introduce new objects. those infinite number of {lo linji} were already=
 prepared in the universe of discourse given first.&nbsp;</div><div><br></d=
iv><div>For example, in the case of finite {lo ci prenu}, let us call the t=
hree persons p1, p2, p3. In the universe of discourse.&nbsp;The following s=
umti are all in the domain of plural variable that are prenu even if you do=
n't mention the sumti:</div><div>p1</div><div>p2</div><div>p3</div><div>p1 =
jo'u p2</div><div>p2 jo'u p3</div><div>p3 jo'u p1</div><div>p1 jo'u p2 jo'u=
 p3</div><div><br></div><div>Similarly, the infinite number of {lo linji} w=
ere in the domain of plural variable that are linji when the universe of di=
scourse was given first.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote cla=
ss=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #=
ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">Would you say that {lo sakta cu me lo najnimr=
yjisra}? For me it would be=20
<br>a very definite No.
<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>No, but the current topic i=
s not similar to that but to {lo re prenu cu me lo mu prenu}.</div><div>&nb=
sp;</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_2902_33078397.1392003085196--