Received: from mail-qc0-f191.google.com ([209.85.216.191]:51332) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1WXKXY-00043M-8Q for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 18:09:50 -0700 Received: by mail-qc0-f191.google.com with SMTP id r5sf35790qcx.18 for ; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 18:09:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=pQfJRC0+d86mlIHbOPGTLrgwixJxJk4HkrESHqonBaU=; b=vrAOcNnKZvvU3khP+ASeNZWwr791LIljwMRATDy/5y1Nr4/QHc6PqS9r4nBTyM5JDF D++9HmGFYjaE7vXT8joJB2a96c3U3s2wJpeRdYkqgyBoMx1iTOeiJzoFWYa6Wgd+B8LM OfZhy3FVVQHw3p5dmeiVpik0AEyHptqF+hOdmsanNGOIjNE4gRQmgO6Ei6wxYfZ5BYBJ 6264LlMqOQTF1cxLzj/kzNZF6O912iWZxN4cxAYT6IPns1y46XhjEZbb5iWVMNG3ycs5 IjJkRmpNu2yo405cjxfV1gLxN5pRJUsmK2EejxJ8fdlD7i0V87tmzmO5GfMOVkD9UmxW ogKA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=pQfJRC0+d86mlIHbOPGTLrgwixJxJk4HkrESHqonBaU=; b=jPOIw26E8esxxv0ZY3SQJ4EWp4RODByDZDDKlt/haYME5NpEOsgjE6yzd4HU2PO/aW v4VZ0E0pgqjwT8zcwY4G4e4yzOHMQEt58WvhgPoLteFYkI/PZQWtJEeHfYo65fLwXdTT oP2cLEtOsbtkzGOAL7PHiqkP3gvprLU8B301n4ToHCh1Fzot82Ekox4GhbxrpfPOnjqc q/FebErQao2Eb5QKIOZcF6r6aP/Q/vRigyIzHgyzZ9OD6rVhKqvBXVXBYLq5nW/e2KH9 lPVy5Y2Vyaf86q4LiKbLAjWzKYZWvXUHd1U2A9PjzL6rnLwPtPpUZ0hfO3Y8cMKMFcLT DVPg== X-Received: by 10.50.178.196 with SMTP id da4mr618416igc.17.1396919361808; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 18:09:21 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.50.25.165 with SMTP id d5ls158589igg.28.gmail; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 18:09:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.131.201 with SMTP id oo9mr332584igb.4.1396919361131; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 18:09:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 18:09:19 -0700 (PDT) From: guskant To: lojban@googlegroups.com Message-Id: <750f9b01-a747-4b12-80ba-e31b7e7bd20e@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: References: <52F26B9E.2090001@gmx.de> <5e023b9a-515c-432b-a389-8f9af4766b51@googlegroups.com> <52F29ED8.1050607@gmx.de> <372dd8f1-1920-4afa-8d11-aa55696982a0@googlegroups.com> <03555bbd-cc44-426f-94ee-65d557f2d301@googlegroups.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> <52FE053C.3000604@gmx.de> <1e6d5917-ad1e-4c5b-abb7-5deb92110b83@googlegroups.com> <68bacba4-a957-481c-ba00-211db2de8dc3@googlegroups.com> <2f4f0766-1f52-46f0-80af-b4de86d9b5bd@googlegroups.com> <618e6524-d7f0-46c9-8d0b-bbee2dd0cd41@googlegroups.com> <36c4c2b2-8f8c-4d44-ac8e-48c02d45a233@googlegroups.com> <4b6b2cb9-51e5-47f6-97a9-2dec16406864@googlegroups.com> <390f1b9f-6edd-42f2-8474-ad1f3610cca3@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: [lojban] Individuals and xorlo MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: gusni.kantu@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_2734_9948691.1396919359705" X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / ------=_Part_2734_9948691.1396919359705 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Le mardi 8 avril 2014 02:24:11 UTC+9, la gleki a =C3=A9crit : > > The question to all involved in this this discussion. > 1. Has the full resume been recorded anywhere? > I made a page on lojban.org a month ago in Japanese: http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=3Dgadri+%E3%81%AE%E8%AB%96%E= 7%90%86%E5%AD%A6%E7%9A%84%E8%A6%B3%E7%82%B9%E3%81%8B%E3%82%89%E3%81%AE%E8%A= 7%A3%E8%AA%AC&no_bl=3Dy I am translating it into English, though I have not yet done: http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=3Dgadri%3A+an+unofficial+com= mentary+from+a+logical+point+of+view&no_bl=3Dy I am very bad at English, and your help/correction on the translation will= =20 be appreciated if you can read my Japanese text. =20 > 2. What is the definition of lu'o? Still loi=3Dlu'o ro lo?=20 > 3. What's the definition of {lu'a}? lu'a lo =3D lo me lo? > > I did not discuss on {lu'o} and {lu'a} in the thread, but I will do in=20 Section 3.3 of my commentary: http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=3Dgadri%3A+an+unofficial+com= mentary+from+a+logical+point+of+view&no_bl=3Dy#Relation_between_lu_a_lu_o_l= u_i_and_gadri {loi} =3D {lo gunma be lo} , the same as BPFK's definition. As for {lu'a}, BPFK's definition is too weak for expressing an individual= =20 or individuals. I gave an unofficial definition of {lu'a} as follows: {lu'a sumti} =3Dca'e {lo cmima be sumti noi selcmi ku onai lo se gunma be= =20 sumti noi gunma ku onai lo me sumti ku vu'o noi su'o da zo'u da me ke'a gi'e no'a} The detailed discussion will be translated soon on that page. > 2014-02-26 17:20 GMT+04:00 guskant >: > >> >> >> Le mercredi 26 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 06:49:07 UTC+9, xorxes a =C3=A9crit : >> >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:04 AM, guskant wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Le mardi 25 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 07:59:04 UTC+9, xorxes a =C3=A9crit : >>>> >>>>> >>>>> It seems to me that it would be better to use "si'e" rather than "mei= "=20 >>>>> for that purpose, and "pagbu" instead of "me". If you allow things li= ke=20 >>>>> "so'i da poi me lo pa nanba" you pretty much destroy "me" as "among" = and=20 >>>>> you turn it into "pagbu". >>>>> >>>>> When {lo nanba} is non-individual, {so'i da poi me lo pa nanba} is no= t=20 >>>> allowed. non-individual referents cannot be in the domain of {so'i da}= ,=20 >>>> because only individuals are allowed in the domain of singular variabl= es. >>>> >>> >>> Right, but then you need an additional constraint on your=20 >>> pseudo-individuals: they must be either individuals themselves, or they= =20 >>> must be atomless, they cannot properly contain any individuals. By=20 >>> "non-individual" I assume you mean atomless, not containing any individ= uals=20 >>> at all, rather than merely not being an individual. >>> >>> >> >> Right. >> >> >> =20 >> >>> =20 >>> >>>> If {P si'e} were allowed for P>1, {si'e} would have been better than= =20 >>>> {me} for non-individual referents.=20 >>>> (I have once suggested an interpretation of {P si'e} for other than=20 >>>> P<=3D1, though nobody agreed: https://groups.google.com/d/ >>>> msg/lojban/6LRA8XntyGc/6MFRVIfGDMMJ .) >>>> >>> >>> It seems that nobody disagreed either. I can't say I understand the=20 >>> negative si'e, but I don't have a problem with the greater than one.=20 >>> =20 >>> >>>> According to the current definition: >>>> x1 number si'e x2 x1 pagbu x2 gi'e klani li number lo se gradu be x2 >>>> it seems that a number followed by {si'e} cannot be larger than 1=20 >>>> unless {pagbu} is interpreted very broadly so that x1 of {pagbu} can b= e=20 >>>> larger than x2. >>>> >>> >>> I'd keep "pagbu" as normal, and define si'e more carefully so that it= =20 >>> can cover more cases. >>> =20 >>> >> >> >> That is what I wish. >> >> >> =20 >> >>> Under this condition, if {P si'e} is used for counting up, a number=20 >>>> followed by {si'e} should be changed every time another referent becom= es to=20 >>>> be considered. >>>> ko'a pa si'e >>>> i >>>> ko'a fi'u re si'e ije ko'a jo'u ko'e pa si'e >>>> i >>>> ko'a fi'u ci si'e ije ko'a jo'u ko'e jo'u ko'i pa si'e >>>> ... >>>> >>> >>> ko'a pa si'e ko'a gi'e fi'u re si'e ko'a jo'u ko'e gi'e fi'u ci si'e=20 >>> ko'a jo'u ko'e jo'u ko'i=20 >>> >>> >> >> Yes, and speakers may not want to change the unit every time counting up= . >> >> >> =20 >> >>> =20 >>> >>> Using {ke'a}, our definitions are described as follows: >>>>>>>>>> (D1-7) ko'a su'o pa mei >>>>>>>>>> (D1) ke'a su'o N mei :=3D su'oi da poi me ke'a ku'o su'oi de poi= me=20 >>>>>>>>>> ke'a zo'u ge da su'o N-1 mei gi de na me da >>>>>>>>>> (D2) ke'a N mei :=3D ke'a su'o N mei gi'e nai su'o N+1 mei=20 >>>>>>>>>> (D3) lo PA broda :=3D zo'e noi ke'a PA mei gi'e broda >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When (D1-7) defines for {ko'a}, the referent of {ko'a} satisfies= =20 >>>>>>>> {su'o pa mei} _non-distributively_.=20 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Any other referents that are {me ko'a} do not satisfy {su'o pa mei}= . >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> As for (D1-7), speakers who talk about non-individual referents may= =20 >>>>>> select not only {ko'a} but also any arbitrary {ko'e} {ko'i}... as {s= u'o pa=20 >>>>>> mei} as long as the selected referents don't conflict each other. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What do you mean by "conflict"? Overlap? Or do you mean that some=20 >>>>> things are selected as pseudo-atoms, so that, for example: >>>>> >>>>> ko'a su'o mei >>>>> ko'e su'o mei >>>>> ko'i goi ko'a jo'u ko'e su'o mei >>>>> >>>>> So ko'a and ko'e are pseudo-atoms, because nothing among them (beside= s=20 >>>>> themselves) satisfies "su'o mei", but "ko'i" is not a pseudo-atom, be= cause=20 >>>>> there are things among them, different from ko'i itself, that do sati= sfy=20 >>>>> "su'o mei".=20 >>>>> >>>>> Then all and only the pseudo-atoms will satisfy "pa mei", and only=20 >>>>> things composed of one or more pseudo-atoms will satisfy "su'o mei"..= =20 >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes.=20 >>>> >>> >>> You will also need to modify your (D1) to: >>> >>> (D1') ke'a su'o N mei :=3D su'oi da poi me ke'a ku'o su'oi de poi me k= e'a=20 >>> gi'e su'o mei zo'u ge da su'o N-1 mei gi de na me da >>> >>> Otherwise, if ko'a and ko'e are both atomless "ko'a jo'u ko'e cu re mei= "=20 >>> will be false. Without the additional restriction in (D1) "ko'a jo'u ko= 'e=20 >>> su'o N mei" will be true for any positive N, because you only need ko'a= as=20 >>> your starting point and then you can keep adding pieces of ko'e to coun= t up=20 >>> because the original (D1) doesn't require the add ons to be su'o mei. (= For=20 >>> my definition, the additional restriction doesn't change anything, beca= use=20 >>> everything satisfies it so it's not really any restriction.) >>> =20 >>> >> >> >> Right. I need (D1') for proper definition of {N mei} for non-individuals= .=20 >> I was implicitly requiring it as "non-conflict selection of {su'o pa mei= }",=20 >> but it should have been explicit. >> >> >> =20 >> >>> Non-individual referents are excluded from outer quantified sumti and= =20 >>>> singular bound variables of official Lojban. (If su'oi, ro'oi etc beco= me=20 >>>> official, it is not the case, though.) Possibility of quantification o= n=20 >>>> non-individual referents are left only in expressions with inner=20 >>>> quantifier. If inner quantifiers are allowed to non-individual referen= ts,=20 >>>> speakers who regards {lo nanba} as non-individual consider that a half= of=20 >>>> {lo pa nanba} is also {me lo nanba}. If inner quantifier is given only= to=20 >>>> individual(s), the language restrict thought of speakers so that they= =20 >>>> should consider that "a half of {lo pa nanba} is not {me lo nanba}".= =20 >>>> >>> >>> That's because "me" is supposed to mean "among", not "part of". Your=20 >>> thought is not restricted, you just have to choose the words that bette= r=20 >>> express your thoughts. >>> >>> >> >> The thought of "a half of {lo pa nanba} is also {me lo nanba}" is not=20 >> related to the concept {part of} as long as {lo pa nanba} is a=20 >> non-individual referent related to other non-individual referents with= =20 >> {me}. Non-individual {lo pa nanba} as well as "a half of" {lo pa nanba} = is=20 >> only an ordinary vertex of an infinite tree constructed with {me}. I sai= d=20 >> "a half of" because I don't know an appropriate short expression in=20 >> English. Only when a unit is equalized with an individual, a half of {lo= pa=20 >> nanba} is regarded as {part of}. Actually there is no other method for= =20 >> expressing non-individual quantification; there is no choice of the word= s=20 >> that better express the thought of non-individual with quantification.= =20 >> >> If {M si'e} is properly defined so that M>1 is accepted, {lo PA pi broda= }=20 >> and {lo pi PA broda} may represent non-individual quantification, which = are=20 >> expanded to expressions with {M si'e}. If it is realized, the language= =20 >> design will be more universal. =20 >> >> >> --=20 >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group= s=20 >> "lojban" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send a= n=20 >> email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com . >> To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com >> . >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > > --=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/d/optout. ------=_Part_2734_9948691.1396919359705 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Le mardi 8 avril 2014 02:24:11 UTC+9, la gleki a = =C3=A9crit :
The question to all involved in this this discussion.
1. Has the fu= ll resume been recorded anywhere?

I made a page on lojban.org a month ago in Japanese:
http://ww= w.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=3Dgadri+%E3%81%AE%E8%AB%96%E7%90%86%E= 5%AD%A6%E7%9A%84%E8%A6%B3%E7%82%B9%E3%81%8B%E3%82%89%E3%81%AE%E8%A7%A3%E8%A= A%AC&no_bl=3Dy

I am translating it into Englis= h, though I have not yet done:
http://www.lojban.org/ti= ki/tiki-index.php?page=3Dgadri%3A+an+unofficial+commentary+from+a+logical+p= oint+of+view&no_bl=3Dy

I am very bad at Englis= h, and your help/correction on the translation will be appreciated if = you can read my Japanese text.

 
2. What is the = definition of lu'o? Still loi=3Dlu'o ro lo? 
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;bord= er-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">
3. What's= the definition of {lu'a}? lu'a lo =3D lo me lo?


I did not discuss on = {lu'o} and {lu'a} in the thread, but I will do in Section 3.= 3 of my commentary:
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?pag= e=3Dgadri%3A+an+unofficial+commentary+from+a+logical+point+of+view&no_b= l=3Dy#Relation_between_lu_a_lu_o_lu_i_and_gadri

{loi} =3D {lo gunma be lo} , the same as BPFK's definition.
As for {lu'a}, BPFK's definition is too weak for expressing an indiv= idual or individuals. I gave an unofficial definition of {lu'a} as follows:=

{lu'a sumti} =3Dca'e {lo cmima be sumti noi = selcmi ku onai lo se gunma be sumti noi gunma ku onai lo me sumti ku
<= div>                    &= nbsp;      vu'o noi su'o da zo'u da me ke'a gi'e no'a}
=

The detailed discussion will be translated soon o= n that page.



2014-02-26= 17:20 GMT+04:00 guskant <gusni...@gmail.com>:


Le mercredi 26 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 06:49:07 UTC+9, x= orxes a =C3=A9crit :

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:04 AM, guska= nt <gusni...@gmail.com> wrote:

Le mardi 25 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 07:59:0= 4 UTC+9, xorxes a =C3=A9crit :

It seems to me that it would be better to use "si'e" rather than "mei" for = that purpose, and "pagbu" instead of "me". If you allow things like "so'i d= a poi me lo pa nanba" you pretty much destroy "me" as "among" and you turn = it into "pagbu".

When {lo nanba} is non-i= ndividual, {so'i da poi me lo pa nanba} is not allowed. non-individual refe= rents cannot be in the domain of {so'i da}, because only individuals are al= lowed in the domain of singular variables.

Right, but then you need an addition= al constraint on your pseudo-individuals: they must be either individuals t= hemselves, or they must be atomless, they cannot properly contain any indiv= iduals. By "non-individual" I assume you mean atomless, not containing any = individuals at all, rather than merely not being an individual.



Right.


 
 
If {P si'e} were allowed for P>1, {si'e} would hav= e been better than {me} for non-individual referents. 
(I have once suggested an interpretation of {P si'e} for other than P&= lt;=3D1, though nobody agreed: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/6LRA8XntyGc/6MFRVIfGDMMJ .)

It seems that nobody disagreed eithe= r. I can't say I understand the negative si'e, but I don't have a problem w= ith the greater than one. 
 
According to the current definition:
=
x1 number si'e x2 x1 pagbu= x2 gi'e klani li number lo se gradu be x2
it seems that a number= followed by {si'e} cannot be larger than 1 unless {pagbu} is interpreted v= ery broadly so that x1 of {pagbu} can be larger than x2.

I'd keep "pagbu" as normal, and defi= ne si'e more carefully so that it can cover more cases.
 &nb= sp;


That is what I wish.


 
Under this condition, if {P si'e} is used for countin= g up, a number followed by {si'e} should be changed every time another refe= rent becomes to be considered.
ko'a pa si'e
i
ko'a fi'u re si'e ije ko'a jo'u ko'e pa si'e
i
ko'a fi'u ci si'e ije ko'a jo'u ko'e jo'u ko'i pa si'e
.= ..

ko'a pa si'e ko'a gi'e fi'u re si'e = ko'a jo'u ko'e gi'e fi'u ci si'e ko'a jo'u ko'e jo'u ko'i 
<= br>


Yes= , and speakers may not want to change the unit every time counting up.


 


Using {ke'a}, our definitions are described as follows:
(D1-7) ko'a su'o pa mei
(D1) ke'a su'o N mei :=3D= su'oi da poi me ke'a ku'o su'oi de poi me ke'a zo'u ge da su'o N-1 mei gi = de na me da
(D2) ke'a N mei  :=3D ke'a su'o N mei gi'e nai su'o N+1 mei 
(D3) lo PA broda :=3D zo'e noi ke'a PA mei gi'e broda
=
When (D1-7) defines for {ko'a}, the referent of {ko= 'a} satisfies {su'o pa mei} _non-distributively_. 
Any other referents that are {me ko'a} do not satisfy= {su'o pa mei}.

As for (D1-7), speakers who talk about non-individual= referents may select not only {ko'a} but also any arbitrary {ko'e} {ko'i}.= .. as {su'o pa mei} as long as the selected referents don't conflict each o= ther.

What do you mean by "conflict"? Over= lap? Or do you mean that some things are selected as pseudo-atoms, so that,= for example:

ko'a su'o mei
ko'e su'o mei
ko'i goi ko'a jo'u ko'e su'o mei
So ko'a and ko'e are pseudo-atoms, because nothing among them (= besides themselves) satisfies "su'o mei", but "ko'i" is not a pseudo-atom, = because there are things among them, different from ko'i itself, that do sa= tisfy "su'o mei". 

Then all and only the pseudo-atoms will satisfy "pa mei= ", and only things composed of one or more pseudo-atoms will satisfy "su'o = mei".. 

Yes. 

You= will also need to modify your (D1) to:

 (D1'= ) ke'a su'o N mei :=3D su'oi da poi me ke'a ku'o su'oi de poi me ke'a gi'e = su'o mei zo'u ge da su'o N-1 mei gi de na me da

Otherwise, if ko'a and ko'e are both atomless "ko'a jo'= u ko'e cu re mei" will be false. Without the additional restriction in (D1)= "ko'a jo'u ko'e su'o N mei" will be true for any positive N, because you o= nly need ko'a as your starting point and then you can keep adding pieces of= ko'e to count up because the original (D1) doesn't require the add ons to = be su'o mei. (For my definition, the additional restriction doesn't change = anything, because everything satisfies it so it's not really any restrictio= n.)
 

<= br>
Right. I need (D1') for proper definition of {N mei} fo= r non-individuals. I was implicitly requiring it as "non-conflict selection= of {su'o pa mei}", but it should have been explicit.


 
Non-individual referents are excluded from outer quantified sumt= i and singular bound variables of official Lojban. (If su'oi, ro'oi etc bec= ome official, it is not the case, though.) Possibility of quantification on= non-individual referents are left only in expressions with inner quantifie= r. If inner quantifiers are allowed to non-individual referents, speakers w= ho regards {lo nanba} as non-individual consider that a half of {lo pa nanb= a} is also {me lo nanba}. If inner quantifier is given only to individual(s= ), the language restrict thought of speakers so that they should consi= der that "a half of {lo pa nanba} is not {me lo nanba}". 

That's because "me" is supposed to m= ean "among", not "part of". Your thought is not restricted, you just have t= o choose the words that better express your thoughts.



The thought of "a half of {lo pa nanba} is also {me lo nanba}" = is not related to the concept {part of} as long as {lo pa nanba} is a non-i= ndividual referent related to other non-individual referents with {me}. Non= -individual {lo pa nanba} as well as "a half of" {lo pa nanba} is only an o= rdinary vertex of an infinite tree constructed with {me}. I said "a half of= " because I don't know an appropriate short expression in English. Only whe= n a unit is equalized with an individual, a half of {lo pa nanba} is regard= ed as {part of}. Actually there is no other method for expressing non-indiv= idual quantification; there is no choice of the words that better express t= he thought of non-individual with quantification. 

If {M si'e} is properly defined so that M>1 is accep= ted, {lo PA pi broda} and {lo pi PA broda} may represent non-individual qua= ntification, which are expanded to expressions with {M si'e}. If it is real= ized, the language design will be more universal.  


--
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+un...@googlegroups= .com.
To post to this group, send email to l= oj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt= _out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban+unsub= scribe@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 http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
------=_Part_2734_9948691.1396919359705--