Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.17.22 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.17.22;
Message-ID: <54E27599.7010305@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 23:56:25 +0100
From: selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] BPFK Section: Non-logical Connectives
References: <CAO7bV+iMXZxf7nWz4bYzd0H++xrn2fgZrj4UJUPDf8N4Bkxw2w@mail.gmail.com>	<CAKOEKkS0hCTa2-U+qmqs4gRgHCeKxFRVXuETxWQxB=__o5F=sQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+gZtg+Ssc91M1yTn-pF=mVHY_MY36opRzmDWZSo+avyeuofLA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+gZtg+Ssc91M1yTn-pF=mVHY_MY36opRzmDWZSo+avyeuofLA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -1.7
X-Spam_score_int: -16
X-Spam_bar: -

la latro'a cu cusku di'e
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 5:01 PM, Michael Turniansky
> <mturniansky@gmail.com <mailto:mturniansky@gmail.com>> wrote:
>     On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:49 AM, Gleki Arxokuna
>     <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com <mailto:gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>         http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+Non-logical+Connectives
>
>         mi joi ry. ze'a casnu lo lijda ctuca tadji
>         Me and R have been discussing religious teaching methods.
>
>
>        No, because lo casnu is specifically defined as being a mass,
>     which "joi" creates
>
> Here I agree, casnu1 only makes sense nondistributively, so {joi} is
> clearly correct. If you accept that {jo'u} builds lo-groups (see my next
> paragraph), then {jo'u} would also be correct, but "lazily" so. va'i
> it's correct because it always is, not because it's really the right
> tool for the job in this case.

I don't see what's "lazy" about a plural satisfying a predicate 
collectively.

>         Isn't this example wrong?
>
>         What about the other two examples? Shouldn't {jo'u} or {ce} work
>         better here:
>
>         la .djan. joi la .pitr. cu re mei
>         John and Peter are two.
>
>
>        Again, no, because lo remei is defined as a mass.  You could use
>     ce to make lo se remei, though.  And I believe that la djan jo'u la
>     pitr would actually be two pamei, not a remei
>
> Here at least in the usual IRC dialect I disagree. We've identified the
> "lo plural type" as being constructed by {jo'u}, since otherwise {jo'u}
> seemed rather useless and because we didn't have any other way to refer
> to this type that we literally use in almost every sentence.

This is not an IRC invention; it's been in the BPFK pages for over 10 
years, thanks to xorxes. Credit where credit is due.

> For similar
> reasons mei1 includes lo-groups in the IRC dialect. I have forgotten
> whether it continuous to include masses.

Unless you are proposing a polymorphic/ambiguous {mei}, this doesn't 
make a lot of sense. {mei} let's you say how many referents a sumti has, 
it doesn't matter what you put in the x1 - {lo ci cinfo} has three 
referents, while {lo [pa] gunma be lo ci cinfo} has one referent.

> If it doesn't then we need a
> {brode} such that {loi PA broda cu brode li PA}.

See {cmimei}.

mi'e la selpa'i mu'o

-- 
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/d/optout.