From rmcivor@macsrule.com Mon May 10 17:05:56 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 10 May 2004 17:05:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tomts10.bellnexxia.net ([209.226.175.54] helo=tomts10-srv.bellnexxia.net) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.31) id 1BNKmL-0003OE-Gq for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 17:05:49 -0700 Received: from [192.168.0.14] ([64.230.133.24]) by tomts10-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.05 201-253-122-130-105-20030824) with ESMTP id <20040511000547.SADG27206.tomts10-srv.bellnexxia.net@[192.168.0.14]> for ; Mon, 10 May 2004 20:05:47 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613) In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040510163139.036f8aa0@pop.east.cox.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040510163139.036f8aa0@pop.east.cox.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis From: Robert McIvor Subject: [lojban] Re: loglan/lojban masses/sets Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 20:05:46 -0400 To: lojban-list@lojban.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.613) X-archive-position: 7776 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rmcivor@macsrule.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On May 10, 2004, at 4:47 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote: > At 11:24 AM 5/10/04 -0700, Jorge "Llambías" wrote: >> Loglan "lea", the gigantic individual, is probably >> Lojban's {piro loi}, the whole mass. 'lea' is definitely not an indiviual, but refers to the entire collection of discrete objects. Whereas in earlier times JCB liked to refer to 'lo' as 'the mass of all x". Current usage corresponds to E 'some' or 'a', the former for material thought of in the mass, such as 'water', 'milk', 'sugar'. 'rice', the latter when any incidence fulfils the requirement as in 'lo taksi', a taxi > > Not recalling how things have evolved in the last 15 years, but lea, > when > first added to TLI Loglan, meant EXACTLY Lojban "ro lo ro", and was > used > for universal claims about veridical entities. Lojban lo was in a > sense > back derived from lea, once pc explained what "veridical" meant. 'lo ro' would not now be considered correct Loglan. > >> Loglan "lo" is what And once described as "the myopic >> singularizer", all the individuals considered as one >> individual (not added together as with "lea" but all >> superposed into one). For a long time I used Lojban >> {lo'e} for this as a generic. But now I am using Lojban >> {lo}, thus returning to the origins in some sense. >> >> Loglan does not have anything equivalent to {lo} >> as {su'o lo}. For that it simply uses the equivalent >> of {su'o broda}. > > ba jia broda, IIRC (Lojban equivalent "da poi broda") was the closest > TLI > Loglan equivalent to lo broda. ba ji broda has largely fallen into disuse in favour of 'lo' > >> As far as I know it doesn't have anything like lo'e/le'e >> either. > > It has loe which of used at various times for both Lojban lo'e and le'e > >>> Comparing our languages we have stuck with the articles/descriptors. >>> In particular, I wonder how can I translate from Loglan to Lojban >>> {Focu mrenu} --- a quartet of persons? Is it {lo'i vo prenu} or >>> something else? >> >> With my current understanding, I'd say {lo vo prenu} for the generic >> case (as in "this is meant to be played by a quartet") or >> {le vo prenu} if you have a particular quartet in mind. > > prenu vomei, with conversion to select the appropriate place of the mei > selbri depending on whether you want a set, mass, or individuals. > > TLI masses were covered by loi and lei with the quantifiers on the > latter > covering the two senses of the "two men carrying the log across the > field. 'loi' is still 'hello' The two senses (together or separately) are given by 'le to' and 'lei to' and 'tocu' for an unspecified pair Bob McIvor