Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400c:c03::233 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400c:c03::233;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <f3068c3d-41d9-4bdb-801a-0160422973d9@googlegroups.com>
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>
	<56096dec-1969-420d-b4e5-b8539cbe0cc0@googlegroups.com>
	<52F8FAA2.9030009@gmx.de>
	<d6efd1cb-67df-4eac-bbfa-594e398d752e@googlegroups.com>
	<52FE053C.3000604@gmx.de>
	<c4ed7ea2-88cb-42e9-85ab-2333b72628ac@googlegroups.com>
	<CAO7tK2eR7Y+tzvQKa2VOV8uyLH3yCOgsUpGqKPzU3a1iDWvhLg@mail.gmail.com>
	<1e6d5917-ad1e-4c5b-abb7-5deb92110b83@googlegroups.com>
	<CAO7tK2fPBHb-akuCkn7uZMeu8uK-LJdWs6cZHaUv+dSVrv4PQA@mail.gmail.com>
	<f3068c3d-41d9-4bdb-801a-0160422973d9@googlegroups.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 11:26:04 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2cgRXCKPfoT6g4SegcmVSBAgkRpEN8fY59zJdmnC7dbag@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Individuals and xorlo
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban@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: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c28808ae2e7104f286d142
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

--001a11c28808ae2e7104f286d142
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 4:40 AM, guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> I meant I was deceived by the description on the gadri page that {lo
> broda} "refers generically to any or some individual or individuals".
> Because I knew what is among and what is individual, I believed that
> "individual" on the page is something different from what is defined in the
> theory of among. Actually, the word "individual" is not necessary for
> definition of {lo}. If {lo} were first defined, and after that "individual"
> were defined, then I would not have been deceived.
>

I agree that the definition is not ideal. It's just the least bad we could
come up with at the time. I prefer the one in Lojban.

Whether {ro'oi da su'oi de ro'oi di poi ke'a me de zo'u de me di ije de me
> da} is applied or not to a universe of discourse is not always important in
> usual conversation. We can talk with each other without mentioning
> individuals:
>
> - xu do djica tu'a lo ckafi
>  - go'i iji'a tu'a lo sakta
>
> It is not necessary to mention that {lo ckafi} and {lo sakta} are
> individuals. They can exist as non-individual, as long as we don't apply an
> outer quantifier to them.
>

I agree, but it doesn't seem harmful to take them as individuals either. If
it's followed by "mi ba zi dunda lo re da do", atomicity has been invoked
and now they are individuals (each of them one).

The thing is that the language has from its design a strong bias towards
atomicity. Numbers don't make much sense without any atoms to count, and
numbers are a very basic feature, not just of Lojban but of most natlangs
(maybe all of them except allegedly Piraha). So even if we don't take
atomicity as a common ground axiom, in practice it seems that it can always
be invoked without any special effort.

In any case, if you are still thinking of putting in writing a detailed
alternative presentation of "lo" I will be interested to read it.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
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.

--001a11c28808ae2e7104f286d142
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 4:40 AM, guskant <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"m=
ailto:gusni.kantu@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">gusni.kantu@gmail.com</a>&gt=
;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D""><div><br></=
div><div><br></div></div><div>I meant I was deceived by the description on =
the gadri page that {lo broda} &quot;refers generically to any or some indi=
vidual or individuals&quot;. Because I knew what is among and what is indiv=
idual, I believed that &quot;individual&quot; on the page is something diff=
erent from what is defined in the theory of among. Actually, the word &quot=
;individual&quot; is not necessary for definition of {lo}. If {lo} were fir=
st defined, and after that &quot;individual&quot; were defined, then I woul=
d not have been deceived.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I agree that the definition is not i=
deal. It&#39;s just the least bad we could come up with at the time. I pref=
er the one in Lojban. =A0</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_qu=
ote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex=
">
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Whether {ro&#39;oi da su&#39;oi de ro&#39;oi di poi k=
e&#39;a me de zo&#39;u de me di ije de me da} is applied or not to a univer=
se of discourse is not always important in usual conversation. We can talk =
with each other without mentioning individuals:</div>
<div><br></div><div>- xu do djica tu&#39;a lo ckafi=A0</div><div>=A0- go=
9;i iji&#39;a tu&#39;a lo sakta</div><div><br></div><div>It is not necessar=
y to mention that {lo ckafi} and {lo sakta} are individuals. They can exist=
 as non-individual, as long as we don&#39;t apply an outer quantifier to th=
em.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I agree, but it doesn&#39;t seem har=
mful to take them as individuals either. If it&#39;s followed by &quot;mi b=
a zi dunda lo re da do&quot;, atomicity has been invoked and now they are i=
ndividuals (each of them one).=A0</div>
<div><br></div><div>The thing is that the language has from its design a st=
rong bias towards atomicity. Numbers don&#39;t make much sense without any =
atoms to count, and numbers are a very basic feature, not just of Lojban bu=
t of most natlangs (maybe all of them except allegedly Piraha). So even if =
we don&#39;t take atomicity as a common ground axiom, in practice it seems =
that it can always be invoked without any special effort.=A0</div>
<div><br></div><div>In any case, if you are still thinking of putting in wr=
iting a detailed alternative presentation of &quot;lo&quot; I will be inter=
ested to read it.</div><div><br></div><div>mu&#39;o mi&#39;e xorxes</div>
<div><br></div></div></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 />

--001a11c28808ae2e7104f286d142--