Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of wow.jvs@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4864:20::429 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::429;
From: mezohe <wow.jvs@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] x2 of remna
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
References: <3599730.Gzx9hWiHjm@mooncat>
Message-ID: <be9b0515-2f0e-64da-b8cf-ba774164143a@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 13:06:39 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3599730.Gzx9hWiHjm@mooncat>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -2.9
X-Spam_score_int: -28
X-Spam_bar: --

2019-06-20 12:07 Pierre Abbat:
> In the gimste, {remna} has no x2, unlike other words for kinds of organisms.
> As several species are placed in the genus Homo, we should have a way to talk
> about them. Should we use {remna} with x2 ({ta remna la .denisov.}, or {ta
> remna la .aiutac.} using the Altai name for the cave), or make up another
> word?
> 
> Pierre
> 

Species places in taxon words make it impractical to correctly talk 
about individuals in the same taxon that aren't in the exact same 
species. Non-essential places in general are liabilities.

> ! so'i cakcinki cu xabju lo purdi
doesn't work because it expands to

> ! so'i cakcinki be zo'e cu xabju lo purdi [be zo'e bei zo'e]
zo'e is a constant; so'i can't scope over it. All this can mean is "many 
beetles of the obvious species live in the garden"; nothing is said 
about beetles of other species. And there does have to be a single 
species zo'e refers to, since having it refer to multiple ones would say 
for *each* beetle that it's a member of all the species.

In this case, there's a fairly simple way to get the intended meaning:

> so'i cakcinki be su'o da cu xabju lo purdi
Many beetles, each of some species. Problem solved. But consider

> ! lo cakcinki poi xabju lo purdi cu dirba je se manci mi
where we have the same implicit zo'e -- "the beetles of that species 
that live in the garden" --

> ! lo cakcinki be zo'e be'o poi xabju lo purdi
but in this case, even when we replace zo'e with a quantified variable, 
there's no improvement, as there's no singular quantifier to scope over 
it. (There can't be one if things like {lo jmaji} or {lo simxu} are to 
mean anything!)

> ! lo cakcinki be su'o da be'o poi xabju lo purdi
If lo doesn't give us a singular quantifier, let's introduce one.

> ? lo poi'i ro me ke'a su'o da cakcinki poi xabju lo purdi
A constant such that each thing among it is a beetle of some species. 
And that they live in the garden. Phew.

So now we have something likely to mean what was intended, but are 
people ready to accept this kind of verbosity (twice as many syllables 
as the English equivalent) into their everyday speech?

I'd be happy to lose all species places, and then some, in exchange for 
not having to talk like that.

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lojban/be9b0515-2f0e-64da-b8cf-ba774164143a%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.