From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Dec 16 16:32:40 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 16 Dec 2005 16:32:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1EnPzp-0006pl-KV for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 16:32:21 -0800 Received: from web81309.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.125]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.54) id 1EnPzo-0006pd-G4 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 16:32:21 -0800 Received: (qmail 92707 invoked by uid 60001); 17 Dec 2005 00:32:19 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=nu1RieJ7RJv3NNaUALY6zuMscfheY8W4gee7W56WI899G0CnXtPrfIKG4bqxWL2SaiNmNpB3lFZRBaxP112a4cwxa8wIb12/raGIGtgN6udQR1mz2dtzHmgjgZotwjJtfMy/JMYgciJEWa0FtEwEYhegxN7dP22sS0r1MkC86lQ= ; Message-ID: <20051217003219.92705.qmail@web81309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.230.168.167] by web81309.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 16:32:19 PST Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 16:32:19 -0800 (PST) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: A Proposed Explanation of {gunma} To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <925d17560512161328n27024b5cm795730b66ec40a1@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-archive-position: 10919 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > 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. So, by you, {lo broda} are just some brodas that you happen to be considering together for the nonce, while a gunma is several whatevers together where there togetherness has achieved some sort of separate status: a team, a committee, a wolf pack, and so on, maybe even enough status that it could continue to be that thing even if some of the whatevers left and others came in. In other words, a togeherness that has achieved reification, which lo broda per se have not collectively. OK, even if I thought that {lo broda} was a set of some sort, this distinction is a useful one to make. How do we refer to a particular gunma? I suppose with a description like {lo kamni} (or maybe better, {le}) or a name: {la ienkis}oor explicitly massifying some tiher object like {lu'o lo broda}. There will be grey cases, of course, but presumably the distinction is not so crucial that the different decisions will make a real difference. Masses can be predicated of either distributively or collectively, with possibly the additional feature that in the collective case not all the constituents of the mass actualy have to participate in the event described (or these cases might be taken as individual predications of the thing, not as either distributive or collective. Although presumably the demassified individuals in the mass could still be predicated of in the two ways. As these possibilities mount up, I see that such objects cannot be defined outright in either version of bunch theory but enter as a new type in each. I wonder what they will look like axiomatically. > > > 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. Thanks. > > 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. I don't get the last point. {loi broda} is just some brodas of whom some property is predicated collectively, {lo broda} is the same guys without specifying whether the predication involved is one way or the other. What distinction is lost? To be sure, the predication is always either distributive or not but we don't have to say which. It looks to me like you really do want to build the type of predication into the argument, making loi broda lo broda plus something else. Surely saying that they are both the same fusion does not prevent any other interpretation of the distinction. > >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. Invites, but does not require. As McKay points out, the axioms and definitions for "among" and the rest are the same as those for mereological "part of" with atoms. > 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. I don't suppose that Urgoo, Mr. Broda, for example, has constituents. Which seems to mean that either you have abandoned Mr. Broda as the referent of {lo broda} -- and with it several of the peculiar proerties of xorlo -- or you are using "not a single thing but several things" in a very poetic way, which I can't unpack while keeping it connected to the rest of the discussion. I of course hope it is the former, but am not sanguine. 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.