From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sat Dec 17 06:57:36 2005
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 17 Dec 2005 06:57:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.54)
	id 1EndUr-00031S-E5
	for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sat, 17 Dec 2005 06:57:17 -0800
Received: from web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.123])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.54)
	id 1EndUq-00031K-CA
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 17 Dec 2005 06:57:17 -0800
Received: (qmail 63082 invoked by uid 60001); 17 Dec 2005 14:57:11 -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=R8l1Z1psLfK/dAvBjXMbOcaf4CDnBbcUacX6SkygAShxM2hmcBzTlZDfIGLQpgcki1EFq6FoD/pnDihe0AYx6CDgM94vy/dputAAwTOO81Wwfc8dCpQbW2wKXrs2YFGtNZyAYaivoiRNUZzFlnVPWGyxzPsMUcnquRPSDPIxG7w=  ;
Message-ID: <20051217145711.63080.qmail@web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Received: from [70.230.158.161] by web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 17 Dec 2005 06:57:11 PST
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 06:57:11 -0800 (PST)
From: John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [lojban] Re: A Proposed Explanation of {gunma}
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
In-Reply-To: <207.f45a817.30d4c8ca@wmconnect.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: 10926
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

--- MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com wrote:

> In a message dated 12/15/2005 4:22:08 AM
> Central Standard Time, John E 
> Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> via
> ecartis@digitalkingdom.org writes:
> 
> 
> > Although I have at one time or another argued
> for
> > most of these positions and tried to
> interrelate
> > them, I now think that some of them are
> seriously
> > flawed and that a couple of errors pervade
> the
> > list above.  
> 
> > -- 
> 
> > they have properties that 
> > depend upon the
> > and 
> 
> > from individuals or plurals in that they take
> > collective predication rather than
> distributive
> > (or individual individual predication).   
> 
> What do you think about the first two points? 
> You have only listed them, 
> AFAICT.  Or should the double dash be "are"?

Well, "which are" or "namely."  I think they are
correct, although, when talking to xorxes at
least, I would have to say that these claims are
not about masses in his sense -- namely,
institutionalized, reified, groupings -- but
about the more informal loi broda.  Of course,
most of this applies to xorxes' masses as well.  

 
> > think that the fourth point -- that (some)
> masses
> > do the work of mass nouns is correct but that
> > that description of this role -- in Lojban --
> is
> > incorrect as given above. The third
> > characteristic -- that a mass inherits all
> the
> > properties of its members (I used to call it
> a
> > logical sum) -- I now think rests upon some
> > interlocking errors.
> > 
> > 
> stevo
> 



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.