Message-Id: <m0qlisb-00005LC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Fri, 16 Sep 1994 15:20:59 -0400
Reply-To:     "Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         "Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: TECH: Any old thing whatsoever (was RE: do djica loi ckafi
              je'i
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
In-Reply-To:  <199409151213.IAA28201@cs.columbia.edu>
              (i.alexander.bra0125%OASIS.ICL.CO.UK@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU)
Content-Length: 6878
Lines: 149

>           tcati)

>Date:         Thu, 15 Sep 1994 13:14:00 BST
>From: i.alexander.bra0125%OASIS.ICL.CO.UK@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

>cu'u la mark. clsn.
>> I recall we went through this discussion once before; in fact it was
>> spurred on by a similar discussion regarding TLI Loglan regarding taxis
>> (mentioned by Randall Holmes here, I see).  The answer there (our analogous
>> version of JCB's I think, and I liked it) was "loi tanxe".  This works.  I
>> need [some part of] the mass of things that are boxes.  Possibly "lei
>> tanxe" if you want to admit something that isn't a box but turns out to be
>> what I meant anyway.  I don't think we need a new quantifier for this one;
>> massification works (unless massification was rethought and redefined since
>> the last time this question came through and I missed it).  I'll try to
>> find quotes from the last time.

>(I'm with Jorge on this one.)
>Sorry, Mark, I didn't really buy this the last time round,
>and I think I understand better why now.

>    mi nitcu loi tanxe

>means

>    There is some part of the mass of things that are boxes
>    that I need.

>In other words, it suffers from the same problem as the {lo} version.
>It's more difficult to think of examples where you would actually
>want to say this, but I firmly believe that it has to work this way.
>Massification is irrelevant.

OK, let me quote what we had last time 'round.

Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 11:31:05 -0500
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab%GREBYN.COM@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      HISTORY: Some recent JCB pronouncements on Loglan
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: Mark Shoulson <shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu>

In weeding through my mail files, I found 2 postings by JCB on the
Loglanist
list that appeared and shortly thereafter seems to have disappeared.
(Anyone
know what happened to it???)  They give historical viewpoints on topics
that
have come up in Lojban List discussions, and which therefore may be of
interest
to the masses.  I forward the messages in their entirety, without
translation
of the TLI Loglan to Lojban equivalents.  However, I will note that his
"lo" is our "loi/lei" distinction, with a heavier bearing on "loi", and his
"da" series is in Lojban split up into "ri/ra/ru" and the "ko'a series",
and
the "vo'a" series and a couple of other things.

lojbab
_______________
Message  5:
Date: 28 Aug 92 02:02:31 EDT
From: James Cooke Brown <70674.1434@CompuServe.COM>
To: Logli <loglanists@ucsd.edu>
Subject: Re: Gary on "Waiting for a Taxi"

Hoi Logli, kae:

This is in response to Gary's ideas about "waiting for a taxi."  One can
indeed say 'Mi na pazda ne taksi' = 'I am waiting for exactly one taxi'
or 'Mi na pazda su taksi' = 'I am waiting for at least one taxi'; but I
don't think either of these forms is the "best", in the sense of "most
loglandical", usage for conveying what is happening when one is waiting
for a taxi.  Why not?  Because it emphasizes the denumerability property
of taxis and this is not what is involved in waiting for one.

What IS involved can perhaps only be seen from the perspective of those
(mostly preliterate) peoples (like the Trobrianders), who use the mass
designation almost exclusively in their languages.  (Look at Dorothy
Lee, on this topic; or even Quine.  There's even an article by me of
"The Creatures of Lo" in one of the early TL's.)  For these people,
there are no importantly separate manifestations of ANYTHING.  As I say
in L1, each baby to a Trobriander is simply a manifestation of "Mr.
Baby", each yam, an appearance of "Mr.  Yam" all over again.  Everything
is a manifestation of some mass individual:  water of the mass of all
the water there is, a yam of all the yams there are, a book of all the
books there are, and so on.  It is COUNTING that is awkward and odd in
such languages.  Invariably they use a special enumerator, like
"one-piece yam", "one-piece baby", "one-piece book", when they want to
treat these objects as separate, countable things.

Now, L is not Trobriand.  But L is neutral on this matter of
manifestation versus denumerability...well; not quite; the unmodified L
preda is indeed denumerable.  But L does have a 'lo' operator that
allows you to talk in a Trobriand way should you wish to.  It allows all
of us to use this mysteriously shadowy conception of the mass individual
standing behind each manifestation of itself when it is semantically
appropriate for us to do so.

Now we come to a matter of personal judgement.  Having played this eerie
game for some years, I am persoanlly convinced that that is exactly what
I am doing when I am waiting for "a taxi"...or going to "the
movies"...or liking "icecream"...or enjoying the company of "women".  I
am waiting for, going to, liking, and enjoying the company of,
respectively, some manifestation in my experience of all the taxis there
are, all the movies there are, all the icecream there is, all the women
there have ever been.  In fact, that is PRECISELY what I am doing when I
am waiting for a taxi!  I am waiting for an appearance out of the mist
of this mass individual.  And interestingly enough neither 'Mi na pazda
ne taksi' nor 'Mi na pazda su taksi'--and certainly not 'Mi na pazda le
taksi' unless I called one!--gives anything like the right spin on my
meaning.  For at the moment, when I am actually waiting for one, I am
totally uninterested in the fact that taxis can, under other
circumstances, be lined up in ranks and be counted.

What I am waiting for IS an appearance, a manifestation, of something
much much larger than the particular taxi that eventually does bear down
on me.

So, I at least will pazda lo taksi, godzi lo sinma, and gaispe lopo mi
kinci lo fumna whenever I am in Loglandia...and in true Trobriand
fashion, I will not count a single one of them, or even regard them as
very separate from one another.

It is, in short, a question of mood, of how one means to enjoy--or at
least experience--the world.  Trobrianders do it one way; counters do it
another way; we logli ought to be able to do it both ways.  Which way
are you going to do it when you are waiting for a taxi?  Or enjoying the
company of women?

Hue Djim Braon

========

Back to present, Mark Shoulson reporting.

That said, it looks to me like there may be more than one thing at work
here.  On the one hand, things like "I like tennis"" or "I like women"
should use "loi".  After all, we go around saying how "loi" is massified
like the way some places refer to all rabbits as instantiations of Mr
Rabbit, these are instantiations of Dr. nu tennis and Ms. Woman.

But "I need a box" (and possibly tho not necessarily I need a taxi) may be
different, since you're not referring in general... precisely because *NOT*
"any of" the mass will do.  A full box won't help you.  Ormaybe "lei" will
help there.  I dunno..

For consideration...

~mark