From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Sep 09 13:14:23 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 09 Sep 2009 13:14:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MlTYd-00022x-FV for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 09 Sep 2009 13:14:23 -0700 Received: from web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.121]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MlTYZ-00022n-QP for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 09 Sep 2009 13:14:23 -0700 Received: (qmail 88999 invoked by uid 60001); 9 Sep 2009 20:14:13 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1252527253; bh=zmrBjpbwfVSjpJmrFj2iEINyw2SCOFVo9aNJ3+vElYw=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=F+X5W4/55dxSOWB73F2F0wln1JEdLhIpWPcCOT3aUsR04fvC136bLuzWbO+9FShgo4FxaW79vG0Ya+lcJ+Bwb3uSvB4wNnXYYwIGi46NE/gWkSh+4ubl9kFJn8ntQwXoQ4kfs+PiCCgV5qdVu7G/iHboXEJ4P+wq9QJCVC2rQEU= 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; b=GI6/l/2UkBIOeg2t/3iZJfYFBvupUUdav9yO+8tl95VwKS868jLFmTvM+f7xFuX0aLckAtV595nv2qFzEHW6s4GET6PRIWSviVs7l0fOt7LHl96wWeODr9bC2VPf/n2ujPRoAZlPDLs6at6cbWgMteCJHm3tk7617LH7NFUBwOw=; Message-ID: <507917.88436.qm@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: 5chMyUkVM1m3YEw_EYt1CZvA.ezCmI9dLAJm.ehh2ZvKuCT3dQU4jOeFNo.76tVcktweMzFeJye6RmYA3UUOS9.DoWOM0TRlyCjm3mQFw97qdq6Z5rTp5NMvWvgDY2Oel14HX46MqxS6b5WGNTyqG5N3XlrJeBUYAMRbfoO1JqfeVdvuGDzvz9TdULwLgDVmW3MUGSIZkrikpYjhwMSJNXxgaL0s8fW3M7sf..Q57ix0EE.XfhpbHkEetPBZOE70oy_aAJfddX70OKu78Z00HVtU8DbTsVobor5MkcbT092mHAL2.K3pmtlJh_Fu1ONf5myN.xQwB_UvSAZ2QC5.A3coS3iQ1BHRMr.6c.rKeYGaMO0v8Rcuh4lFfcLA1KmGqT6vH7X0 Received: from [24.207.224.145] by web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 09 Sep 2009 13:14:13 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/1358.27 YahooMailWebService/0.7.338.2 References: <9ada8ecd0909051425t78a046f3kddef2869e5c8e7a2@mail.gmail.com> <9ada8ecd0909080221h297baa5eqb5eba2ad6ac1d5d5@mail.gmail.com> <200909080827.14128.phma@phma.optus.nu> <9ada8ecd0909081238j2649ee89g28c6b34c72d82b18@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560909081321x34f3faa1u40106c6ed49b5972@mail.gmail.com> <9ada8ecd0909081431m6758386dgf241e2b27e99b5d7@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560909081613o6eec4c9i71c10f8f418e5c17@mail.gmail.com> <9ada8ecd0909091032h9c4c838x4addad9337e10f18@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 13:14:13 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: xorlo To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <9ada8ecd0909091032h9c4c838x4addad9337e10f18@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1954208982-1252527253=:88436" X-archive-position: 16133 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 --0-1954208982-1252527253=:88436 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This gets into loi a lot and as I have said (and xorxes repeats) just what = that means is not clear. xorxes lists two of the possibilities., but there = is also the notion of a mass and probably some other things possible.=0A=0A= =0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: Squark Rabinovich =0ATo: lojban-list@lojban.org=0ASent: Wednesday, September 9= , 2009 12:32:53 PM=0ASubject: [lojban] Re: xorlo=0A=0A=0A2009/9/9 Jorge Lla= mb=C3=ADas =0A=0A>On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Squ= ark Rabinovich wrote:=0A>> lo broda=C3=A1can mean any= quantifier applied to broda=C3=A1,=0A>=0A>>I already have to object at thi= s point because "lo broda" doesn't have=0A>>a quantifier at all (assuming w= e are talking of outer quantifiers, the=0A>>so called "inner quantifiers" a= re not strictly quantifiers in the=0A>>logic sense). "lo broda" is a consta= nt, so in logical notation "lo=0A>>prenu cu bajra" would be something like = B(p), while a quantified=0A>>expression like "su'o prenu cu bajra" will be = "Ex P(x): B(x)". This=0A>>may not seem important for such simple examples, = but it does make a=0A>>difference for more complex cases.=0A>=0A=0AI don't = understand. Consider the sentence lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno The English tr= anslation is "a man / the man / men / the men carry the piano(s)". What doe= s this sentence mean? By itself, it means nothing. With the addition of con= text, it gets a meaning. This meaning depends on the context. The possible = meanings are=0A"A man carries the piano(s)"=0A"Some men carry the piano(s)"= =0A"Many men carry the piano(s)"=0A"Most men carry the piano(s)"=0A"All men= carry the piano(s)"=0Aet cetera, and also variants with "the", although wh= y would we use lo rather than le for these?=0AEach of these meaning contain= s a certain quantifier (in the fuzzy sense, since "many" isn't a precise nu= mber). Thus the semantics of the sentence contains a context-dependent quan= tifier.=0A=0ANot le because not so specific and the last three are less pla= usible (though possible) readings. The first two carry quantifier words in= English and if you take them seriously then the English is not a good tra= nslation of the Lojban :maybe "Men (maybe only one) carry the so-called pia= no"There is no indication of how any men are referred to, so not even inter= nal quantifiers. ["many" is not a fuzzy quantifier, merely a vague one]=0A= =0A>> masses of broda=C3=A1(or even=0A>>> sets of broda=C3=A1?! that would = be weird since a set is an object of entirely=0A>>> different nature).=0A>= =0A>>Sets are indeed things of an entirely different nature, and that's why= =0A>>I don't really use them at all. For "loi" there are (at least) two=0A>= >views: (1) it merely indicates that the predicate for which the sumti=0A>>= is an argument applies collectively to the referents of the sumti, or=0A>>(= 2) it refers to a new type of entity, a "mass". If "loi" is taken as=0A>>(1= ), then "lo" covers it, in the sense that "lo" is silent on=0A>>distributiv= ity and therefore can be used in both the collective or the=0A>>distributiv= e cases. If (2), (the "loi =3D lo gunma be lo" theory) then=0A>>"lo" does n= ot cover it, since "loi" refers to a different type of=0A>>entity. In pract= ice, it doesn't really matter much which view you use,=0A>>pick the one you= like most.=0A>=0A=0AI don't understand the practical difference between th= e views. When I say lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno can it be that the men carry= the piano(s) together? If so, what is the difference between that and sayi= ng loi nanmu cu bevri ? Does the later imply the relation between the men i= s stronger than carrying the piano together?=0ANo. xorxes remembers things= differently from the way I do butwe agree that at one time loiwas for coll= ective argument and that later it was for some other type of entity, group = or mass or whatever (but not set nor, because they are not another sort of = entity, bunch). I think that lo has the default value of collective ,, wit= h distribution handled by external quantifiers, xorxes apparently does not,= taking that too to be handled by context, apparently. [As I say, I do kee= p trying to make this all systematic, even though I know Lojban is not a lo= gical language in the sense of being logical, but I would think it would at= least keep up with the syntax of logic.]=0A=0A>> For example, lo nanmu bev= ri le pipno=C3=A1can mean anything from "a man carries=0A>=0A>> the piano(s= )" or "several groups of men carry the piano(s)" to "all men=0A>> carry the= piano(s)". It can also mean "the=C3=A1man carries the piano(s)".=0A>=0A>>I= don't know about the "several groups" one. The others all seem like=0A>>po= ssible readings.=0A>=0A=0AIf lo nanmu cu beveri le pipno can mean that the = men carry the piano(s) together, then it probably can also mean they carry = it/them divided into several groups, which is a middle state between doing = it all together and doing it individually. Am I wrong?=0A=0AYes and no. It= says that they carry the piano together, it does not say how they are depl= oyed in this endeavor. So, it does not mean that they do it in groups (I s= uppose you mean subbunches, since groups in the later sense aren't the sort= of things that can carry anything any more than a set --usually -- can). = It doesn't deny that they do it that way, but it doesn't even suggest that = they do. It is compatible with all sorts of arrangements -- subbunches, rel= ays, workers and supervisors, etc. etc.=0A=0A =0A=0A>> m=C3=A1lo broda mean= s "m=C3=A1individual broda". This is way more specific than the=0A>>> previ= ous constructs. Can it also mean "the m=C3=A1broda=C3=A1out of the specific= =0A>>> broda"?=0A>=0A>>"mu lo nanmu" doesn't really mean much outside of a = full bridi. A=0A>>quantifier acts on a full bridi, so you can't tell what i= t means until=0A>>you give a bridi. For example:=0A>=0A>> mu lo nanmu cu = bajra=0A>=0A>>means: out of all the referents of "lo nanmu", exactly five o= f them=0A>>are such that when x refers to him "x bajra" is true. Without th= e full=0A>>bridi you don't know what you are claiming of exactly five of th= e=0A>>referents of "lo nanmu".=0A>=0A=0AI understand that you have to put i= n a bridi . I was speaking imprecisely, for brevity's sake. What about mu l= o nanmu cu bevri le pipno ? Can they carry the piano(s) together? =0A=0AWel= l, I think xorxes and I will disagree here: I think that an external quanti= fier forces a distributive reading and it is at least possilbe that xorxes = does not (since mine is based on taking loalone as always collective, which= xorxes apparently does not). =0A=0A>=0A>> It doesn't=0A>>> appear to make = much sense to use a non-specific collection of n=C3=A1broda=C3=A1. "a=0A>= =0A>> person out of some three person" is strange, because why should we ca= re=0A>>> about these generic three persons? How are they related to the mea= ning=0A>> conveyed? For example re lo ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno=C3=A1. Two= persons are=0A>=0A>> carrying piano(s), but what is the relevance of the t= hird? Unless it's a=0A>>> specific threesome we have in mind here, in which= case, why wouldn't we use=0A>> le=C3=A1?=0A>=0A>>Maybe that's why those fo= rms are not used much. Let's say "two out of=0A>>three persons who will be = chosen at random will do one thing, and the=0A>>remaining person will do so= mething else". Maybe a bit contrived, but I=0A>>don't have anyone in mind a= s to who the three persons chosen at random=0A>>will be.=0A>=0A=0AI agree i= t might in principle make sense if an inner incidental relative clause is a= ttached.=0A=0ALooks ok as it stands in the explanation of a test or assignm= ent or some such. As I have said before, we may not know how the third pers= on is in the group, only that he is. =0A=0A=0A>>> loi broda=C3=A1means... H= mm, I don't see what's the difference between this and=0A>>> lo broda=0A>= =0A>>It's impossible to see any difference between "loi broda" and "lo=0A>>= broda" outside of a bridi. When used as an argument in a bridi, "loi"=0A>>i= ndicates that the predicate on that argument place is applied=0A>>collectiv= ely, while "lo" does not indicate anything one way or the=0A>>other.=0A>=0A= =0AConsider loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno . Does it mean that the men carry t= he piano together, as a single group?=0AAt one time, yes; now, I think not.= The rest is irrelevant.=0AOr can it refer to several groups? If the later= , each group can consist of one individual, in which case we are back to in= dividuals. Hence we get the same thing as with lo . If the former, does it = make it the same as pa loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno ?=0A =0A>> For example= =C3=A1su'o re pixa loi=0A>>> nanmu cu bevri le pipno=C3=A1means "at least t= wo groups of men exist such that=0A>=0A>> 60% of each group carry the piano= (s)".=0A>=0A>"su'o re pi xa" is "at least 2.6". I think you mean "su'o re l= o pi xa=0A>>loi nanmu", =C5=84t least two 60%'s of groups of men". Ugh.=0A>= =0A=0ADoes it mean I can't use a regular outer quantifier and a fractional = outer quantifier simultaneously? Do I understand correctly we have inner fr= action quantifiers as well? =0A=0AIt's not clear what you mean here; the ex= ample you give is not two quantifiers but one complex one, Xorxes points o= ut how to get something like the two quantifiers you want but, as he notes,= the results doesn't make a lot of sense, I am not sure just what to do to= get what you want (I'm not sure just what you want even). It is surely mo= re complex than just a string of different quantifiers. And, of course, th= ere is the problem of wehat the heck "group" means.=0A=0A> I guess that whe= n a group of men=0A> carries the piano, some men might be entirely uninvolv= ed in carrying the=0A> piano. This means that the factor unifying these men= into a group is=0A> something beyond them carrying a piano together.=0A=0A= =0A>If so, "loi" should not be the way to indicate that they constitute a= =0A>>group. A selbri meaning =C2=B4s a group" should be used.=0A>=0A=0ASo n= ow you're saying loi only indicates joint action or joint whatever, not gro= uping in any other sense. But lo can indicate "joint whatever" as well. Wha= t is the difference?=0AI'd estimate about three years of discussion, gettin= g the roles reassigned and more or less (obviously mainly less) cleared up.= =0AAlso, what is the meaning of pixa loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno ? "60% of = a group of men carry the piano(s)"? But what makes the men a "group"? Not a= ll of them are carrying piano(s), so it has to be something else. However, = you also claim loi cannot be used to indicate such an additional group rela= tionship.=0AIgnoring the problem with "group" we don't know what makes them= that and context may not tell us much even; if there has to be something e= lse (and I am not at all sure there does), we may never know what it is.=0A= =0A=0A=0A --0-1954208982-1252527253=:88436 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This gets into loi a lot and as I have said (and xorxes repeats) just what that means is = not clear. xorxes lists two of the possibilities., but there is also the no= tion of a mass and probably some other things possible.
From: Squark Rabinovich <top.squark@gmai= l.com>
To: lojban-li= st@lojban.org
Sent: Wed= nesday, September 9, 2009 12:32:53 PM
Subject: [lojban] Re: xorlo

=0A
2009/9/9 Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas <jjllambias@gmail.com&g= t;
=0AO= n Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Squark Rabinovich<top.squark@gmail.com> wrote:
> lo broda=C3=A1= can mean any quantifier applied to broda=C3=A1,
=0A
=0AI already have= to object at this point because "lo broda" doesn't have
=0Aa quantifier= at all (assuming we are talking of outer quantifiers, the
=0Aso called = "inner quantifiers" are not strictly quantifiers in the
=0Alogic sense).= "lo broda" is a constant, so in logical notation "lo
=0Aprenu cu bajra"= would be something like B(p), while a quantified
=0Aexpression like "su= 'o prenu cu bajra" will be "Ex P(x): B(x)". This
=0Amay not seem importa= nt for such simple examples, but it does make a
=0Adifference for more c= omplex cases.

I don't understand. Consider the sen= tence lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno The English translation is "a man /= the man / men / the men carry the piano(s)". What does this sentence mean?= By itself, it means nothing. With the addition of context, it gets a meani= ng. This meaning depends on the context. The possible meanings are
=0A"A= man carries the piano(s)"
"Some men carry the piano(s)"
"Many= men carry the piano(s)"
"Most men carry the piano(s)"
"All men carry= the piano(s)"
et cetera, and also variants with "the", although why wou= ld we use lo rather than le for these?
=0AEach of these me= aning contains a certain quantifier (in the fuzzy sense, since "many" isn't= a precise number). Thus the semantics of the sentence contains a context-d= ependent quantifier.

Not le because not so specific and the last = three are less plausible (though possible) readings. The first two carry  quantifier words in English a= nd if  you take them seriously then the English is not a good translat= ion of the Lojban :maybe "Men (maybe only one) carry the so-called piano"Th= ere is no indication of how any men are referred to, so not even internal q= uantifiers.  ["many" is not a fuzzy quantifier, merely a vague one]
=0A= > masses of broda=C3=A1(or even
=0A> sets of broda=C3=A1?! that wo= uld be weird since a set is an object of entirely
=0A> different natu= re).
=0A
=0ASets are indeed things of an entirely different nature, a= nd that's why
=0AI don't really use them at all. For "loi" there are (at= least) two
=0Aviews: (1) it merely indicates that the predicate for whi= ch the sumti
=0Ais an argument applies collectively to the referents of = the sumti, or
=0A(2) it refers to a new type of entity, a "mass". If "lo= i" is taken as
=0A(1), then "lo" covers it, in the sense that "lo" is si= lent on
=0Adistributivity and therefore can be used in both the collecti= ve or the
=0Adistributive cases. If (2), (the "loi =3D lo gunma be lo" t= heory) then
=0A"lo" does not cover it, since "loi" refers to a different= type of
=0Aentity. In practice, it doesn't really matter much which vie= w you use,
=0Apick the one you like most.

I don= 't understand the practical difference between the views. When I say lo = nanmu cu bevri le pipno can it be that the men carry the piano(s) toget= her? If so, what is the difference between that and saying loi nanmu cu = bevri ? Does the later imply the relation between the men is stronger t= han carrying the piano together?
No.&= nbsp; xorxes remembers things differently from the way I do but we= agree that at one time loi was for collect= ive argument and that later it was for some other type of entity, group or = mass or whatever (but not set nor, because they are not another sort of ent= ity, bunch).  I think that lo has the de= fault value of collective ,, with distribution handled by external quantifi= ers, xorxes apparently does not, taking that too to be handled by context, = apparently.  [As I say, I do keep trying to make this all systematic, = even though I know Lojban is not a logical language in the sense of being l= ogical, but I would think it would at least keep up with the syntax of logi= c.]
=0A> For example, lo nanmu bevri le pipno=C3=A1can mean anything from= "a man carries
=0A
> the piano(s)" or "several grou= ps of men carry the piano(s)" to "all men
=0A
> carry the piano(= s)". It can also mean "the=C3=A1man carries the piano(s)".
=0A
=0AI d= on't know about the "several groups" one. The others all seem like
=0Apo= ssible readings.

If lo nanmu cu beveri le pipno= can mean that the men carry the piano(s) together, then it probably ca= n also mean they carry it/them divided into several groups, which is a midd= le state between doing it all together and doing it individually. Am I wron= g?

Yes and no.  It says that= they carry the piano together, it does not say how they are deployed in th= is endeavor.  So, it does not mean= that they do it in groups (I suppose you mean subbunches, since gro= ups in the later sense aren't the sort of things that can carry anything an= y more than a set --usually -- can).  It doesn't deny that they do it = that way, but it doesn't even suggest that they do. It is compatible with a= ll sorts of arrangements -- subbunches, relays, workers and supervisors, et= c. etc.
=0A
 
=0A> m=C3=A1lo broda means "m=C3=A1indivi= dual broda". This is way more specific than the
=0A> previous constru= cts. Can it also mean "the m=C3=A1broda=C3=A1out of the specific
=0A>= broda"?
=0A
=0A"mu lo nanmu" doesn't really mean much outside of a f= ull bridi. A
=0Aquantifier acts on a full bridi, so you can't tell what = it means until
=0Ayou give a bridi. For example:
=0A
=0A   mu= lo nanmu cu bajra
=0A
=0Ameans: out of all the referents of "lo nanm= u", exactly five of them
=0Aare such that when x refers to him "x bajra"= is true. Without the full
=0Abridi you don't know what you are claiming= of exactly five of the
=0Areferents of "lo nanmu".

I understand that you have to put in a bridi . I was speaking i= mprecisely, for brevity's sake. What about mu lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno= ? Can they carry the piano(s) together?

Well, I think xorxes and I will disagree here: I think that an= external quantifier forces a distributive reading and it is at least possi= lbe that xorxes does not (since mine is based on taking lo alone as always collective, which xorxes apparently does not)= .
=0A
> p= erson out of some three person" is strange, because why should we care
= =0A> about these generic three persons? How are they related to the mean= ing
=0A
> conveyed? For example re lo ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno= =C3=A1. Two persons are
=0A
> carrying piano(s), but= what is the relevance of the third? Unless it's a
=0A> specific thre= esome we have in mind here, in which case, why wouldn't we use
=0A
= > le=C3=A1?
=0A
=0AMaybe that's why those forms are not used much.= Let's say "two out of
=0Athree persons who will be chosen at random wil= l do one thing, and the
=0Aremaining person will do something else". May= be a bit contrived, but I
=0Adon't have anyone in mind as to who the thr= ee persons chosen at random
=0Awill be.

I agree= it might in principle make sense if an inner incidental relative clause is= attached.

Looks ok as it stands = in the explanation of a test or assignment or some such. As I have said bef= ore, we may not know how the third person is in the group, only that he is.=
=0A=0A
=0A> loi broda=C3=A1means... Hmm, I don't see what's the diff= erence between this and
=0A> lo broda
=0A
=0AIt's impossible to= see any difference between "loi broda" and "lo
=0Abroda" outside of a b= ridi. When used as an argument in a bridi, "loi"
=0Aindicates that the p= redicate on that argument place is applied
=0Acollectively, while "lo" d= oes not indicate anything one way or the
=0Aother.
=
Consider loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno . Does it mean that the men= carry the piano together, as a single group?
At one time, yes; now, I think not.  The rest is irrelevant.<= /span>
Or can it refer to several groups? If the later, each group can c= onsist of one individual, in which case we are back to individuals. Hence w= e get the same thing as with lo . If the former, does it make it the= same as pa loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno ?
=0A 
=0A> For example=C3=A1= su'o re pixa loi
=0A> nanmu cu bevri le pipno=C3=A1means "at least tw= o groups of men exist such that
=0A
> 60% of each gr= oup carry the piano(s)".
=0A
=0A
"su'o re pi xa" is "at least 2.= 6". I think you mean "su'o re lo pi xa
=0Aloi nanmu", =C5=84t least two = 60%'s of groups of men". Ugh.

Does it= mean I can't use a regular outer quantifier and a fractional outer quantif= ier simultaneously? Do I understand correctly we have inner fraction quanti= fiers as well?

It's not clear wh= at you mean here; the example you give is not two quantifiers but one compl= ex one,  Xorxes points out how to get something like the two quantifie= rs you want but, as he notes, the results doesn't make a lot of sense, = ; I am not sure just what to do to get what you want (I'm not sure just wha= t you want even).  It is surely more complex than just a string of dif= ferent quantifiers.  And, of course, there is the problem of wehat the= heck "group" means.
=0A
=0A> I guess that when a group of = men
=0A> carries the piano, some men might be entirely uninvolved in = carrying the
=0A> piano. This means that the factor unifying these me= n into a group is
=0A> something beyond them carrying a piano togethe= r.
=0A
=0A
=0AIf so, "loi" should not be the way to indicate that they constitute= a
=0Agroup. A selbri meaning =C2=B4s a group" should be used.

So now you're saying loi only indicates joint action= or joint whatever, not grouping in any other sense. But lo can indi= cate "joint whatever" as well. What is the difference?
I'd estimate about three years of discussion, getting the= roles reassigned and more or less (obviously mainly less) cleared up.
Also, what is the meaning of pixa loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno= ? "60% of a group of men carry the piano(s)"? But what makes the men a "gr= oup"? Not all of them are carrying piano(s), so it has to be something else= . However, you also claim loi cannot be used to indicate such an add= itional group relationship.
=0A
Ignoring the problem with "group" we don't know what makes them that<= /span> and context may not tell us much = even; if there has to be something else (and I am not at all sure there doe= s), we may never know what it is.
=0A

= =0A=0A --0-1954208982-1252527253=:88436-- 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.