From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Dec 14 13:31:29 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:31:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1EmeDQ-0007t0-3p for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:31:12 -0800 Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1EmeDP-0007st-PA for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:31:11 -0800 Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:31:11 -0800 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: A Proposed Explanation of {gunma} Message-ID: <20051214213111.GY3616@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20051208071730.GY25496@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <4398939A.1090806@lojban.org> <20051209012929.GD2106@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <1E7AC75C-B8B7-4749-ADA5-F5FBF8CC4C44@mac.com> <925d17560512091007p194e507t2461a44906f94350@mail.gmail.com> <20051214002702.GO3329@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <925d17560512131738w2a0bbf4bi61a99d240b6e922a@mail.gmail.com> <20051214061237.GF3616@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <925d17560512141021u2f41a11g644faf6abffe7ba6@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <925d17560512141021u2f41a11g644faf6abffe7ba6@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i From: Robin Lee Powell X-archive-position: 10883 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 03:21:16PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > On 12/14/05, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 10:38:10PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > > > I think the x1 is a single individual, and the x2 are many > > > individuals together (i.e. they constitute the single > > > individual x1 all together, not each on its own). > > > > OK, so you want to use joi for the x2 then (otherwise it doesn't > > work at all). > > Or {ju'o}. You must mean jo'u. The problem with jo'u is that it doesn't *mean* anything. You can't both be a collective *and* be unmixed; it's total lunacy. > > The problem with that is that it's simply "du". > > > > ly ly gy gunma la xorxes joi la robin joi la bab joi lo drata > > > > You can replace "gunma" with "du" and it still works. > > It wouldn't work with {ju'o}, and whether or not it works with > {joi} would depend on whether you think {joi} (and {loi}) are > reifying or not, i.e. whether you take {mi joi do} to refer to a > single entity or to two entities together. I tend to prefer the > latter view. Neither. "mi joi do" means nothing whatsoever outside of a predication, and it's confusing to talk as though it does. "mi joi do broda" means that you and I together did broda in such a way that our involvement cannot reasonably be seperated. Masses only have meaning relative to predications. This is something that http://philosophy.syr.edu/mckay.html cleared up for me. > > It makes the word totally useless. Having it as a set to mass > > conversion, however, makes it of some use. > > For me, it is sets that are totally useless. I disagree, and will fight on this as much as I can. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/ To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.