From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Sep 07 10:55:37 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 07 Sep 2009 10:55:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MkiRE-0004yb-GB for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 07 Sep 2009 10:55:37 -0700 Received: from web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.121]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MkiR9-0004xE-OF for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 07 Sep 2009 10:55:36 -0700 Received: (qmail 36469 invoked by uid 60001); 7 Sep 2009 17:55:25 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1252346125; bh=DAVTDhOAwoHIruUtJpj6wCXnbjbbEXoyZ44rDyG6TAw=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=WDsidEigol9r/d3RPTGYMNhUK5NCU1GBFn08yUj4x5rqK259ApsQI6wYinUwIoo9jKRdIGamtZsH7/F+bx0TO5UQLDHDdOuhfCZdBPJMZ7vjLpZ9O8hosTH+/ibVDUcX7T15dSAQm8HN8eJQ4snANbU311Ai+7RTF7KHn6n4t8c= DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=UjEFLkOCfte6n+MURiLGPeIV7IMBvUseNelSQnkAthjKtn9Nz6Gt2Kq3SgkqPUcmlB9G0K4AwYw5roXxhuYViynlh/LQbwDsoBBeE98lgHQCLK5MdqbeaTsX9YrJz+BTTAZmL29m8AWPIDvlj3D1R0L2YK5sQe4rQeQ/EnZkkGY=; Message-ID: <230974.35065.qm@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: dwwaNYcVM1l7pcpQhyvahK7WulTP0urti6ohbFPWypTw4z7a4NFugjXVeuX90QjWSxdD0o9QnMF7M21QCS2Nr1QotmaqhSew50W0YuNRoz5u5ryTcx.Aor5vB1XDi9LN4vzWYKv2YMgsGokwInjLv3L.BJA7NICRG0sGylmB.5gzg1aFrMAT2_9RVx14x1mI2yqDjkzYmXXyOj8KDvHfCZ.I0_EQ8erYLOybmH6aFKoLJlm44.m95Yvl.w94OMlgu4wcYjt5WpczdTQ.PS9qICj2IsexUZ3jrqrzzoBAYPFb5Njxa5hvFxZlt.vgfDi.OivICAd68w7tajFQxjpyGaUatiBLRUNNoSZHkIhDeTSZ5tsG7QAnKRux3M39AFz9ROZjg.zy Received: from [24.207.224.145] by web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 07 Sep 2009 10:55:25 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/1358.27 YahooMailWebService/0.7.338.2 References: <9ada8ecd0909051425t78a046f3kddef2869e5c8e7a2@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560909060746n223ad9c7ic88894c3513a6ea1@mail.gmail.com> <9ada8ecd0909061401n35c37197j6ff4fac5b267fc5e@mail.gmail.com> <9ada8ecd0909061426r95b84efu76464f7327430f6c@mail.gmail.com> <395902.46727.qm@web50406.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <9ada8ecd0909061448p2eaa92ep19569f2b66793b76@mail.gmail.com> <386480.83513.qm@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <925d17560909070854sb779926t4ad3321499753241@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 10:55:25 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: xorlo To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <925d17560909070854sb779926t4ad3321499753241@mail.gmail.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 X-archive-position: 16094 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: kali9putra@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Well, I disagree that it leads to trouble if one is careful to keep the rules in mind, but I take your point (as I have before) and try to always offer at least the bunchless alternative formulation. As an old-timer, I just find the locution of bunches or whatever easier to say, even though I either don't really believe in them or think of them as vanishing insignificant ways of speaking. I note in passing that, mereology has no predicate "is a whole," so the sense in which it introduces wholes (or bunches or whatever) seems rather slim. I know, I know; it quantifies over them and so they exist, but in fact, it doesn't every say what it quantifies over. That is all metalanguage and the two versions are totally congruent. ----- Original Message ---- From: Jorge Llambías To: lojban-list@lojban.org Sent: Monday, September 7, 2009 10:54:17 AM Subject: [lojban] Re: xorlo On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 11:04 AM, John E Clifford wrote: > > (I use "bunch" and even that bugs xorxes, who wants no > hint of an entity between the brodas and their expression, so just "(Some) > brodas"). Yes, the reason it bugs me is that for me any quantification of "LE broda" should only be concerned with things that count as broda. Using words such as mass/group/bunch can be harmless, as long as one is not tempted by these words to start quantifying over new entities. If we do quantify over those new things, we are no longer counting brodas and so I prefer to use a different selbri for that new type of entity, "lo gunma be lo broda", "lo girzu be lo broda", "lo selcmi be lo broda", and so on. Using gadri to introduce these new entities just leads to trouble. 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.