Received: from mail-ee0-f56.google.com ([74.125.83.56]:33981) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YNbbB-0007f4-I6 for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 22:25:39 -0800 Received: by mail-ee0-f56.google.com with SMTP id e53sf6907280eek.1 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 22:25:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject: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=dVj98cRB4HKoqiODK4Tu6SPOnog22z0ev3VskJOpK34=; b=DXtfucEO5AJ6gm7xXTGMJpb38EJhIFDsRzTW9fEHt7LNsjYD0pwUw/tUjLD0Aa4H6e GjjiL4THXytdEc6bjcNkEXoyWipmMk7FHCdts42I4alNptzOFXP9KuHnWjzL2Z3zdoaG j7yzRpGkInKy4w6L1L2eTOjTBQJBBV9VeWRUAq+cyNbtax21Y9ZNt5IioldaatrAzC5p 3zqo5OQF25x+LLc027KXE+8q7mAvlk69pOOroECPm0T2GSvu/CacoRtScBDI8aBXFsB4 OWonevffRDy898rnvrTRGD1DUjFFFDwAcsuOquxnjk9QQOFONaeHVl6R4dXEgoznw0IO 0TKQ== X-Received: by 10.181.13.195 with SMTP id fa3mr122112wid.12.1424154319769; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 22:25:19 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.90.43 with SMTP id bt11ls636343wib.37.canary; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 22:25:19 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.194.11.70 with SMTP id o6mr3338306wjb.6.1424154319331; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 22:25:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-we0-x22c.google.com (mail-we0-x22c.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c03::22c]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id el6si253151wib.2.2015.02.16.22.25.19 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 16 Feb 2015 22:25:19 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c03::22c as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c03::22c; Received: by mail-we0-f172.google.com with SMTP id k48so32985361wev.3 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 22:25:19 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.180.109.193 with SMTP id hu1mr53758443wib.25.1424154319201; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 22:25:19 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.194.86.200 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 22:24:59 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Gleki Arxokuna Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 09:24:59 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] BPFK Section: Non-logical Connectives To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f3ba7ed4d2b97050f42c40c X-Original-Sender: gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c03::22c as permitted sender) smtp.mail=gleki.is.my.name@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: -1.7 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.7 X-Spam_score_int: -16 X-Spam_bar: - --e89a8f3ba7ed4d2b97050f42c40c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 2015-02-17 2:31 GMT+03:00 Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas : > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Ian Johnson > wrote: >> >> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 5:01 PM, Michael Turniansky < >> mturniansky@gmail.com> 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 =3D lo gunma be ko'a jo'u ko'e > (joi2) ko'a joi ko'e =3D 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. > So {joi2} is for "plural" non-distributive sumti variable type, {jo'u} is for distributive and {je/.e} is for vague? May be instead use {joi} for {joi1} only and use {ce} for {joi2}? I don't think usage can help here. Most of it would probably be wrong usage= . However, I think that BPFK should strictly specify the meaning of {joi} or even better to specify to how to express plural type ("set") like casnu1, simxu1, how to express masses (if needed), and distributivity. > 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 distributivi= ty > since there's only one thing involved, so nothing to distribute. > I think masses ({lo gunma}) and non-distributive sumti variable type are different things and should not be reconciled in one connective. 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 "casn= u" > 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 eac= h > (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. > --=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. --e89a8f3ba7ed4d2b97050f42c40c Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


2015-02-17 2:31 GMT+03:00 Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas <jjllambias@gmail.com= >:

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

=C2=A0 = No, because lo casnu is specifically defined as being a mass, which "j= oi" creates
Here I agree, casnu1 only makes sense nondistributively, so {= joi} is clearly correct. If you accept that {jo'u} builds lo-groups (se= e my next paragraph), then {jo'u} would also be correct, but "lazi= ly" 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 &quo= t;joi" it's useful to bear in mind it has (at least) two different= definitions (as does "loi"):

(joi1) ko&= #39;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 sumti is used as the argument of a predicate, the predicate= should not distribute over the referents of the sumti.

So {joi2} is for "plural" no= n-distributive sumti variable type, {jo'u} is for distributive and {je/= .e} is for vague?

May be instead use {joi} for {jo= i1} only and use {ce} for {joi2}?

I don't thin= k usage can help here. Most of it would probably be wrong usage.
=
However, I think that BPFK should strictly specify the meani= ng of {joi} or even better to specify to how to express plural type ("= set") like casnu1, simxu1, how to express masses (if needed), and dist= ributivity.


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 distributi= vity since there's only one thing involved, so nothing to distribute.

I think masses ({lo = gunma}) and non-distributive sumti variable type =C2=A0are different things= and should not be reconciled in one connective.

<= br>
Similarly, when we say "lo (pa) kanmi cu c= asnu zo joi" there's only one thing doing the discussing, no distr= ibutivity is involved.

With (joi2) there is distri= butivity 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.<= /div>

For "joi1" I agree with selpa'i, I j= ust use "lo gunma be ko'a jo'u ko'e" when I want to t= alk about the group. "joi2" I never use because it has several pr= oblems. Besides, there are many ways a predicate can be "non-distribut= ive" For example if 10 people are discussing, they could be doing so i= n pairs, or in three groups. It's still non-distributive over people, b= ut using "loi pa no prenu cu casnu" is not the least bit more inf= ormative than using "lo pa no prenu cu casnu". We just know from = the meaning of "casnu" that they are discussing in groups of at l= east two each (and probably all together), but neither form is more helpful= than the other.

What we should do is just give &q= uot;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 &= quot;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.

--
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.
--e89a8f3ba7ed4d2b97050f42c40c--