From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Dec 16 13:29:20 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 16 Dec 2005 13:29:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1EnN8R-0004Ha-2F for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 13:29:03 -0800 Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.199]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1EnN8O-0004HI-4h for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 13:29:02 -0800 Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 68so672390wri for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 13:28:57 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=SrKlJQfk5lJW93QE+5zvO7XJl+T8E7P7x6IXcospd8nMgM7LENTffBZBUeVhW7mtwM6BCchESqeaUvnyrbfuBGFQhi5ap7wBbAvIPVDZaoBgWR/cX5ABEqqhsnP0K8hbSPdy76DHbYfhfAOZ8bFrJaTFYRm7PD7vyZPUzaTXjUM= Received: by 10.54.122.6 with SMTP id u6mr4290030wrc; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 13:28:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.54.126.1 with HTTP; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 13:28:56 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <925d17560512161328n27024b5cm795730b66ec40a1@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 18:28:56 -0300 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: A Proposed Explanation of {gunma} In-Reply-To: <20051216204017.4986.qmail@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline References: <925d17560512161009tfe500fexec0e892b169883b5@mail.gmail.com> <20051216204017.4986.qmail@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 10914 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On 12/16/05, John E Clifford wrote: > Type face problem: it was "ui" not "ul." Has a > distribution like member of the selma'o that > includes {ui}. Ah, that explains it! > > "Hence" is inappropriate there, since {loi > > broda} would not > > be the typical sumti to put in the x1 of gunma. > > Now that is interesting. I would have thought > that {loi broda} was an archetypal mass. If not > it, what? loi broda are, eventually, the constituents of a mass. Examples of "masses" (as in gunma1) would be, besides the obvious lo gunma: lo girzu, lo se cmima, lo bende, lo kanmi, lo lanzu, lo derxi, lo mixre, lo salta, etc. These are all things which in turn have other things as constituents. > Someday I need to find out what is the meaning in > Lojban speak of "orthogonal;" I don't get "at > right angle to" even as a metaphor (or rather it > makes sense as at least two conflicting metaphors > and I don't see enough usage to figure which is > intended). It's not a common English idiom? It simply means that two properties are independent of each other, each on its own axis. In this case, the distributive/non-distributive distinction is independent of the generic/specific distinction, you can have all combinations. > From this I get either that you don't think that > {lo broda} and {loi broda} are the same thing(s) > in different predication relations I do think that they are the same thingS, possibly in the same predication relation even, but with {loi broda} blocking the distributive interpretation and {lo broda} not blocking it. The plural is significant because if they were to refer to one thing the distinction between them vanishes. >or that you > don't think that masses are just are things in > collective predication, leaving it open what they > are exactly. As I said, I rather not bring the word "mass" or any other noun into it, because I don't want to say that {loi broda} refers to one thing, which any noun immediately invites. So, I don't think that loi broda is a mass, I think that loi broda can be the constituents of a mass. > Or both, of course. In either > case, I don't see what that has to do with > genericity, which I tend to read as your take on > at least {lo broda}. It has nothing to do with it. I thought you were bringing it up by suggesting that avatars/exemplars would be the constituents of an Urgoo, but I probably misunderstood. mu'o mi'e xorxes 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.