Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 04:24:14 -0800 (PST)
From: guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <68bacba4-a957-481c-ba00-211db2de8dc3@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2cgRXCKPfoT6g4SegcmVSBAgkRpEN8fY59zJdmnC7dbag@mail.gmail.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>
 <CAO7tK2cgRXCKPfoT6g4SegcmVSBAgkRpEN8fY59zJdmnC7dbag@mail.gmail.com>
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_372_12106536.1392639854396"
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

------=_Part_372_12106536.1392639854396
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Le dimanche 16 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 23:26:04 UTC+9, xorxes a =C3=A9crit :
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 4:40 AM, guskant <gusni...@gmail.com <javascript:=
>
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I meant I was deceived by the description on the gadri page that {lo=20
>> broda} "refers generically to any or some individual or individuals".=20
>> Because I knew what is among and what is individual, I believed that=20
>> "individual" on the page is something different from what is defined in =
the=20
>> theory of among. Actually, the word "individual" is not necessary for=20
>> definition of {lo}. If {lo} were first defined, and after that "individu=
al"=20
>> were defined, then I would not have been deceived.
>>
>
> I agree that the definition is not ideal. It's just the least bad we coul=
d=20
> come up with at the time. I prefer the one in Lojban. =20
>
> Whether {ro'oi da su'oi de ro'oi di poi ke'a me de zo'u de me di ije de m=
e=20
>> da} is applied or not to a universe of discourse is not always important=
 in=20
>> usual conversation. We can talk with each other without mentioning=20
>> individuals:
>>
>> - xu do djica tu'a lo ckafi=20
>>  - go'i iji'a tu'a lo sakta
>>
>> It is not necessary to mention that {lo ckafi} and {lo sakta} are=20
>> individuals. They can exist as non-individual, as long as we don't apply=
 an=20
>> outer quantifier to them.
>>
>
> I agree, but it doesn't seem harmful to take them as individuals either.=
=20
> If it's followed by "mi ba zi dunda lo re da do", atomicity has been=20
> invoked and now they are individuals (each of them one).=20
>
>

Yes, and if it is follwed by "mi ba zi dunda cy jo'u sy do", we can still=
=20
avoid atomicity. As a more vague expression, {xai} of Pierre Abbat instead=
=20
of {cy jo'u sy} may be suitable.=20

Atomicity depends on speakers' epistemology, and Lojban can serve an enough=
=20
variety of expressions for both atomist and non-atomist.


=20

> The thing is that the language has from its design a strong bias towards=
=20
> atomicity. Numbers don't make much sense without any atoms to count, and=
=20
> numbers are a very basic feature, not just of Lojban but of most natlangs=
=20
> (maybe all of them except allegedly Piraha). So even if we don't take=20
> atomicity as a common ground axiom, in practice it seems that it can alwa=
ys=20
> be invoked without any special effort.=20
>
>

I should agree to the point that Lojban has a strong bias towards=20
atomicity.=20
However, as for the current definition in Lojban of inner quantifiers, we=
=20
can avoid mentioning "individual".

{lo PA broda} =3Dca'e {zo'e noi ke'a broda gi'e zilkancu li PA lo broda}

As usual custom, we may regard {lo broda} at the end as an individual, but=
=20
"being an individual" is too strong condition for zilkancu_3 being a unit.=
=20
zilkancu_3 must have "one-some" in some sense, but "one-some" has broader=
=20
meaning than "individual".

For example, we may count {lo rokci} by its spatial detachment from=20
environment, by its weight, by its spatial volume, by its radioactivity=20
etc. Even a non-atomist can count {lo rokci} by one-some in some sense:=20
when {lo rokci} is counted by one becquerel, a non-atomist considers that a=
=20
half of {lo rokci} is also {me lo rokci}, that {lo rokci} is not an=20
individual, and that {lo panono rokci} is still meaningful.

Even though you did not mean non-individual of zilkancu_3 when it was=20
defined, it can be interpreted as above under the condition that {kancu} is=
=20
defined enough vaguely. I support the current definition of {lo PA broda}=
=20
in Lojban including such vagueness of zilkancu_3.


=20

> In any case, if you are still thinking of putting in writing a detailed=
=20
> alternative presentation of "lo" I will be interested to read it.
>
>

I am preparing my personal gadri page, and will definitely need=20
your opinion.
=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_372_12106536.1392639854396
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><br>Le dimanche 16 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 23:26:04 UTC+9, x=
orxes 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;"><div =
dir=3D"ltr"><div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 4:4=
0 AM, guskant <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"javascript:" target=3D"_blan=
k" gdf-obfuscated-mailto=3D"8ZSXFY1SM_EJ" onmousedown=3D"this.href=3D'javas=
cript:';return true;" onclick=3D"this.href=3D'javascript:';return true;">gu=
sni...@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><div><br></div><div><b=
r></div></div><div>I meant I was deceived by the description on the gadri p=
age that {lo broda} "refers generically to any or some individual or indivi=
duals". Because I knew what is among and what is individual, I believed tha=
t "individual" on the page is something different from what is defined in t=
he theory of among. Actually, the word "individual" is not necessary for de=
finition of {lo}. If {lo} were first defined, and after that "individual" w=
ere defined, then I would not have been deceived.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I agree that the definition is not i=
deal. It's just the least bad we could come up with at the time. I prefer t=
he one in Lojban. &nbsp;</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quo=
te" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"=
>
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>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 n=
ot always important in usual conversation. We can talk with each other with=
out mentioning individuals:</div>
<div><br></div><div>- xu do djica tu'a lo ckafi&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;- go'=
i iji'a tu'a lo sakta</div><div><br></div><div>It is not necessary to menti=
on that {lo ckafi} and {lo sakta} are individuals. They can exist as non-in=
dividual, as long as we don't apply an outer quantifier to them.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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 o=
f them one).&nbsp;</div>
<div><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div=
><div>Yes, and if it is follwed by "mi ba zi dunda cy jo'u sy do", we can s=
till avoid atomicity. As a more vague expression, {xai} of Pierre Abbat ins=
tead of {cy jo'u sy} may be suitable.&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div>Atomic=
ity depends on speakers' epistemology, and Lojban can serve an enough varie=
ty of expressions for both atomist and non-atomist.</div><div><br></div><di=
v><br></div><div>&nbsp;</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"mar=
gin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><=
div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div></div><div>The thing i=
s that the language has from its design a strong bias towards atomicity. Nu=
mbers don't make much sense without any atoms to count, and numbers are a v=
ery basic feature, not just of Lojban but of most natlangs (maybe all of th=
em 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 a=
ny special effort.&nbsp;</div>
<div><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div=
><div>I should agree to the point that Lojban has a strong bias towards ato=
micity.&nbsp;</div><div>However, as for the current definition in Lojban of=
 inner quantifiers, we can avoid mentioning "individual".</div><div><br></d=
iv><div>{lo PA broda} =3Dca'e {zo'e noi ke'a broda gi'e zilkancu li PA lo b=
roda}</div><div><br></div><div>As usual custom, we may regard {lo broda} at=
 the end as an individual, but "being an individual" is too strong conditio=
n for zilkancu_3 being a unit. zilkancu_3 must have "one-some" in some sens=
e, but "one-some" has&nbsp;broader meaning&nbsp;than "individual".</div><di=
v><br></div><div>For example, we may count {lo rokci} by its spatial detach=
ment from environment, by its weight, by its spatial volume, by its radioac=
tivity etc. Even a non-atomist can count {lo rokci} by one-some in some sen=
se: when {lo rokci} is counted by one becquerel, a non-atomist considers th=
at a half of {lo rokci} is also {me lo rokci}, that {lo rokci} is not an in=
dividual, and that {lo panono rokci} is still meaningful.</div><div><br></d=
iv><div>Even though you did not mean non-individual of zilkancu_3 when it w=
as defined, it can be interpreted as above under the condition that {kancu}=
 is defined enough vaguely. I support the current definition of {lo PA brod=
a} in Lojban including such vagueness of zilkancu_3.</div><div><br></div><d=
iv><br></div><div>&nbsp;</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"ma=
rgin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">=
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div></div><div>In any cas=
e, if you are still thinking of putting in writing a detailed alternative p=
resentation of "lo" I will be interested to read it.</div><div><br></div></=
div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I am prepar=
ing my personal gadri page, and&nbsp;will definitely need your&nbsp;opinion=
.</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_372_12106536.1392639854396--