Received: from mail-lb0-f191.google.com ([209.85.217.191]:33919) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YNV8L-0000v1-8t for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 15:31:22 -0800 Received: by lbjf15 with SMTP id f15sf336131lbj.1 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 15:31:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help :list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=vy8GXdUa3Qtzd0OP3KsiGz22fMzW8A0ctRne3x67dI0=; b=A3ATlVZyjH12zT+2M9OtA1tElqOobUgf5xhedPYAl/Jq5JmZeBPEfg39W3UV6zbGP8 VzJClLQOHW3Yu2xOS1Ra4HFGy8sGovlDiPIBfWHnkwKBsQ7ZMW1aM2xsvVEQe3qWfa2G tUflnqvy/kaOaHTgZT9lAh1XE+nl5KA+vfY4uiZu981wjNKglJHeaN+cENY3GwM0j1ZJ G3YbW3ZqUqJ/zufUNnvA9GwduMKueuafS+jyyQ6mccB7UJ5ybATGkOafjVsNJJJEXOrW 3EEKXdS2g/euvk+0uN2kwmG+fLjqMg+8GhX1CyCgeVuonOGdWvPBU4sGDMm7VX2kUQGZ MKWQ== X-Received: by 10.152.8.105 with SMTP id q9mr248843laa.35.1424129474155; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 15:31:14 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.21.9 with SMTP id r9ls58524lae.75.gmail; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 15:31:13 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.112.77.101 with SMTP id r5mr2618726lbw.4.1424129473324; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 15:31:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-x235.google.com (mail-wi0-x235.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c05::235]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i7si5742933wif.0.2015.02.16.15.31.13 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 16 Feb 2015 15:31:13 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::235 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::235; Received: by mail-wi0-f181.google.com with SMTP id r20so29451015wiv.2 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 15:31:13 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.77.40 with SMTP id p8mr34592716wiw.53.1424129473229; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 15:31:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.27.56.20 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 15:31:13 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 20:31:13 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] BPFK Section: Non-logical Connectives From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Llamb=C3=ADas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0402abef5db8ea050f3cfb86 X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::235 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=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: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.6 X-Spam_score_int: -15 X-Spam_bar: - --f46d0402abef5db8ea050f3cfb86 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Ian Johnson wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 5:01 PM, Michael Turniansky > wrote: > >> >> 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 think when discussing "joi" it's useful to bear in mind it has (at least) two different definitions (as does "loi"): (joi1) ko'a joi ko'e = lo gunma be ko'a jo'u ko'e (joi2) ko'a joi ko'e = ko'a jo'u ko'e + indication that when this sumti is used as the argument of a predicate, the predicate should not distribute over the referents of the sumti. With (joi1) "ko'a joi ko'e" refers to a single entity that has two constituents. In this case there's no point in talking about distributivity since there's only one thing involved, so nothing to distribute. Similarly, when we say "lo (pa) kanmi cu casnu zo joi" there's only one thing doing the discussing, no distributivity is involved. With (joi2) there is distributivity involved. But saying that several people discuss something always requires non-distributivity, it's the meaning of "casnu", if the x1 are people they must do it together or at least in groups. It's not about being lazy, it's about knowing what "casnu" means. For "joi1" I agree with selpa'i, I just use "lo gunma be ko'a jo'u ko'e" when I want to talk about the group. "joi2" I never use because it has several problems. Besides, there are many ways a predicate can be "non-distributive" For example if 10 people are discussing, they could be doing so in pairs, or in three groups. It's still non-distributive over people, but using "loi pa no prenu cu casnu" is not the least bit more informative than using "lo pa no prenu cu casnu". We just know from the meaning of "casnu" that they are discussing in groups of at least two each (and probably all together), but neither form is more helpful than the other. What we should do is just give "joi" the meaning of "jo'u", which is the useful one and should be the one for the shorter form. 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/d/optout. --f46d0402abef5db8ea050f3cfb86 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com= > wrote:
On Mon, F= eb 16, 2015 at 5:01 PM, Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com&= gt; wrote:

=C2=A0 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 cle= arly correct. If you accept that {jo'u} builds lo-groups (see my next p= aragraph), then {jo'u} would also be correct, but "lazily" so= . va'i it's correct because it always is, not because it's real= ly the right tool for the job in this case.

I think when discussing "joi" it'= ;s useful to bear in mind it has (at least) two different definitions (as d= oes "loi"):

(joi1) ko'a joi ko'e= =3D lo gunma be ko'a jo'u ko'e=C2=A0
(joi2) ko'a= joi ko'e =3D ko'a jo'u ko'e + indication that when this su= mti is used as the argument of a predicate, the predicate should not distri= bute over the referents of the sumti.

With (joi1) = "ko'a joi ko'e" refers to a single entity that has two co= nstituents. In this case there's no point in talking about distributivi= ty since there's only one thing involved, so nothing to distribute. Sim= ilarly, when we say "lo (pa) kanmi cu casnu zo joi" there's o= nly one thing doing the discussing, no distributivity is involved.

With (joi2) there is distributivity involved. But saying t= hat several people discuss something always requires non-distributivity, it= 's the meaning of "casnu", if the x1 are people they must do = it together or at least in groups. It's not about being lazy, it's = about knowing what "casnu" means.

For &q= uot;joi1" I agree with selpa'i, I just use "lo gunma be ko= 9;a jo'u ko'e" when I want to talk about the group. "joi2= " I never use because it has several problems. Besides, there are many= ways a predicate can be "non-distributive" For example if 10 peo= ple are discussing, they could be doing so in pairs, or in three groups. It= 's still non-distributive over people, but using "loi pa no prenu = cu casnu" is not the least bit more informative than using "lo pa= no prenu cu casnu". We just know from the meaning of "casnu"= ; that they are discussing in groups of at least two each (and probably all= together), but neither form is more helpful than the other.

=
What we should do is just give "joi" the meaning of &q= uot;jo'u", which is the useful one and should be the one for the s= horter form.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
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.
--f46d0402abef5db8ea050f3cfb86--