From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Jun 08 03:31:38 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 08 Jun 2006 03:31:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FoHnM-0005Vj-5t for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 08 Jun 2006 03:31:20 -0700 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.180]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FoHnJ-0005Va-B8 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 08 Jun 2006 03:31:19 -0700 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id x31so595885pye for ; Thu, 08 Jun 2006 03:31:15 -0700 (PDT) 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=CBwUEzPhslDuQZUfVKVCaiJhCfucrM7tb03eQGiaJEkdQg3qSYy0HzNtHYAbZQ5fh/AU9sSEwt+Pbbxb4JPNVJplDofDWeADA5Y7GWlfBAWn/15U55gu7sf5cZ2QzR56Q1lLk7aBP2H3N7svbS0Nq09aS2uGV+5r12KcTGkq5AY= Received: by 10.35.70.2 with SMTP id x2mr743562pyk; Thu, 08 Jun 2006 03:31:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.39.13 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Jun 2006 03:31:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 04:31:14 -0600 From: "Maxim Katcharov" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} In-Reply-To: <925d17560606071637u1dfabac7n6e3551086a616f58@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060606175408.36256.qmail@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <925d17560606071637u1dfabac7n6e3551086a616f58@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -1.8 (-) X-archive-position: 11763 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: maxim.katcharov@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On 6/7/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 6/7/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > On 6/7/06, Adam D. Lopresto wrote: > > > > > mass/team/aggregate/whole, together composed of componets x2, considered > > > jointly." It seems pretty clearly that x1 is a mass, and that x2 is a plural > > > reference. > > > > No, it isn't a plural reference. It's a quite strictly a singular > > reference when it's the expanded form. > > If a group is composed of Alice, Betty and Carrie jointly, it does not follow > that the group is composed of Alice jointly. What could that mean? It doesn't mean anything, I don't think that it's the right way to say it. Well, no - if that means that the group is composed of Alice, with her seen as a component part, then that seems fine. If X is a house with ...'innards' A B C (considered as things inside; considered insidely), then the container has inside it Alice (considered insidely). (Note is that the components of a group are 'joint'/together by the very nature of them being in a group - "jointly" is pretty much redundant, in the same way that mass / group / aggregate / whole / etc. are redundant.) To be quite first-orderish about this: Alice is a component part of X Betty is a component part of X Carrie is a component part of X X is a "whole" (a mass/aggregate/composite entity/etc.), such that its parts are considered jointly/together/etc. (in the same way graphite and wood are only a pencil when they're considered jointly). > {gunma} does not mean "x1 has x2 as a member", that's {selcmi}. I don't know if member is the right word, even for cmima, because it has implications of something like a club, staying the same even when the members change radically. The thing with cmima is that it mentions "set", but I suppose that it's not in the sense of a mathematical set, so it might be better, yes. There are several other relationships that are quite close: cmima: x1 is a member/element of set x2; x1 belongs to group x2; x1 is amid/among/amongst group x2 gunma: x1 is a mass/team/aggregate/whole, together composed of components x2, considered jointly pagbu: x1 is a part/component/piece/portion/segment of x2 [where x2 is a whole/mass]; What's the difference between all of these? My take on it is that {cmima} concerns things seen more seperately - a squadron of planes, family of bears, [...]. {gunma} would concern things that look like they're quite close together - a pencil, a book, a car, a body. {pagbu} would be the word to use when you don't care to detail if you see them dispersed or visibly combined. But it doesn't really matter to me which exact interpretations are given: all of these have the same format - there's one aggregate, and component parts of it. (Or possibley two aggregates - perhaps the students can be of two different groups/masses and we want to predicate things about both of them - but this is very very rarely the case.) > {gunma} means "x1 consists of x2". > I'd disagree with that. It's a "mass/team/aggregate/whole, together composed of components...". "Consists" is a special term, it has very specific pragmatics attached to it. > For example: > > le kamni cu gunma la alis jo'u la betis jo'u la karis > "The committee consists of Alice, Betty and Carrie." > > It does not follow that the committee consists of Alice. "Consists" implies "consists only of", "includes" implies "includes but is not limited to". If you want to translate using the full and proper implications of "consists", you'd add {po'o}, in which case I'd agree with you - if the committee consists of po'o Alice, Betty and Carrie, it does not follow that the committee consists of po'o Alice. "Consists" is not the proper word to use. "includes" might be it, but it's best to go with at *least* all the gloss terms given: "is a mass/team/aggregate/whole, together composed of components..." > > le kamni cu selcmi la alis .e la betis .e la karis > "The committee has Alice, Betty and Carrie as members." > > It does follow that the committee has Alice as member. > > The x2 of gunma is (normally) non-distributive and the x2 of selcmi So... non-distributivity would expand to that group expansion that I gave, but with {po'o} thrown in? I don't think that that's right. > is (normally) distributive. > > I say "normally" because the x2 of {gunma} can be distributive in > another way: > > le kamni cu gunma lo nanmu .e ba bo lo ninmu > The committee consisted of men and (later) of women. > > In this case, it does follow that the committee consisted of men, and > also that it (at a later time) consisted of women. But it is not distributive > for the men or for the women. The commitee never did consist of each of > the men nor of each of the women. > > 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. > > 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.