From sentto-44114-14613-1025967153-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Sat Jul 06 07:53:05 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 06 Jul 2002 07:53:05 z (PDT) Received: from n28.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.84]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17Qqvo-0001BG-01 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Sat, 06 Jul 2002 07:53:04 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-14613-1025967153-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.66.96] by n28.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 06 Jul 2002 14:52:33 -0000 X-Sender: gordon.dyke@bluewin.ch X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 6 Jul 2002 14:52:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 43420 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2002 14:52:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Jul 2002 14:52:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta11n.bluewin.ch) (195.186.1.211) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Jul 2002 14:52:32 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (62.202.154.114) by mta11n.bluewin.ch (Bluewin AG 6.0.053) id 3D0EE297002E0AF3 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 16:52:29 +0200 Message-ID: <001b01c224fc$efa19da0$bf9903d5@oemcomputer> To: "jboste" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 From: "G. Dyke" X-Yahoo-Profile: gregvdyke MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 16:53:07 +0200 Subject: Fw: [lojban] pro-sumti question Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 143 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: gordon.dyke@bluewin.ch Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list ----- Original Message ----- From: "G. Dyke" To: "Jorge Llambias" Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2002 12:30 PM Subject: Re: [lojban] pro-sumti question > > **pycyn: Can you get your mail client to let us know when you are quoting > and when you're replying? > Sometimes it seems that you reply inside the <...>'s. > > xorxes: > > > > > la pycyn cusku di'e > > > > >{le remei} refers to a mass based on a two-membered set. > > > > Whereas for me it refers to a two-membered mass. If we can't > > get past this stumbling block, we'll continue talking past > > each other. > > > > I interpret Nmei as being a bijection between the N members of the set in > x2 and the N constituants of the mass in x3. Implied quantifiers on {lei} do > not apply here. > > > >I suspect this is English again, {lei bolci cu crino} is true -- at least > > >this has been said authoritatively several times over the last 47 > years -- > > >if > > >even one ball is green (sometimes if even one ball has a green spot). > > > > But this is only true because of the implicit pisu'o. It seems to me that it > should only be true if "enough" of the balls are green so that, when > considered as a mass the mass is green. Very little of a pine tree is > actually green (with shadows and all, even less than half) but {le ckunu > tricu cu crino} is true because the tree is considered as the mass of it's > components. > > > Yes, unfortunately it has been said authoritatively too many > > times. I never saw actual usage take advantage of this "feature" > > though. > > > > >However, this is still > > >off my point, which is in the this case case, that even when there are a > > >hundred and one balls, the mass with just one of those balls as its only > > >member can still be lei bolci. > > > > In official Lojban, yes, {[pisu'o] lei bolci} is some part of > > the mass of balls, so it can refer to the one ball. > > > > But even in official Lojban I have never before seen the claim > > that {le 101mei} could refer to the mass of one ball. It seems > > outrageous and it would seem to make {mei} fairly useless. > > > > Agreed, we can live with an implied pisu'o on {lei bolci}, but you can't > extend that to {mei} > > > >Oh, surely not every one sui generis. At worst they divide into a number > > remind those of us who are too lazy to find out : what is meant by "sui > generis"? > > > >We have already > > >established that the set of exactly the members of the mass need not be > the > > >set that is relevant for the mass (or at least you seem to have agreed > with > > >me on the cases that I take to have dealt with that). > > Bzzt. I don't recall any examples given by anyone which explain to me what > it is that we have already established. In other words, I can not extract > any semantical meaning to what you have just said. > > > > > I hope I have not agreed with that, since I think that the set of > > exactly the members is the relevant one, if we need to talk > > of any set at all. And the place structure I had proposed for > > {mei}, which you said you liked, had the mass of cardinality n > > in x1, and a supermass (of indeterminate cardinality) in x2. > > I like that as well, scrap my bijection theory > > > > > >I'd go with: "enough members of the group are tired".> > > > > > >As usual -- the question Lojban doesn't ask -- enough for what? Can you > > >come > > >up with something other than "to declare that the whole mass is tired"? > > > > I think tatpi is a particularly bad example. > > I'd say the truth condition of {lei broda cu tatpi} "should" have more to do > with what {broda} we are dealing with than with the truth conditions of {N > le broda cu tatpi}. In Lojban, {lei nanmu cu tatpi} is true if just one of > the men has tired legs. Who cares if they just want to play on the PSII. It > should be true when the mass of men is tired. With tiredness, this will > happen when some of them are tired and then psychological factors come into > play so that at some point we say {lei nanmu cu tatpi}. Which is a mass > factor with little correlation to what {xokau le nanmu cu tatpi} returns. > With {lei skami cu tatpi} (supposing that Windows outputed {mi tatpi} > instead of crashing). I wouldn't say that until either all of them were > tired, or enough of them for it to hinder their work "as a group". > > Another way of looking at this has occured to me: take some painters. {lei > nanmu cu tatpi} would probably hinder their functionality as a mass. Maybe a > ladder needs to be held and the guy meant to be holding it got tired. The > way {lei} works, {lei nanmu cu tatpi .ijo su'o le nanmu cu tatpi}. A mass > should be more than the sum of it's elements. I'm sure there must be some > relation for which {lei broda cu brode .ijenai su'o le broda cu brode} is > true. > > Greg > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Will You Find True Love? Will You Meet the One? Free Love Reading by phone! http://us.click.yahoo.com/ztNCyD/zDLEAA/Ey.GAA/GSaulB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/