From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Mon Nov 14 23:48:19 1994
Message-Id: <199411150448.AA01443@nfs1.digex.net>
Date: Mon Nov 14 23:48:19 1994
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: re loi smani
Status: RO

la djan cusku di'e

> I think that "loi jubme" makes perfect sense.  It is true that it has some
> contradictory properties, but so do many other things.  What color is
> "loi mlatu"?  Answer: any color you like.  It is red, or brown, or blue,
> or black, or white, or whatever.

I agree that {loi jubme} makes perfect sense. I don't understand why you
say it has contradictory properties. Does {lo jubme} have contradictory
properties? What color is {lo mlatu}? Again any color you like. This is
because the question is ill posed, since they are nonspecific descriptions
but you are treating them in English as specific. What color is a cat?

The difference between {lo mlatu} and {loi mlatu} appears when it's about
more than one cat. In that case, {lo} treats them separately, and {loi}
treats them as a unit.

It doesn't make that much difference in cases like:

        mi viska lo mlatu
        I see some cats (separately)

        mi viska loi mlatu
        I see some cats (a mass of cats)

But in other cases it makes a big difference:

        lo mlatu cu citka lei finpe
        Some cats (separately) eat the fish.

        loi mlatu cu citka lei finpe
        Some cats (as a mass) eat the fish.

The first one says that at least one cat eats the fish, but if there is
more than one, then each cat eats the whole mass of fish. The second one
says that some number of cats eats the fish, but not separately, so we
can have each cat eating its own share of the fish, rather than they all
eating the same thing.

With {le} and {lei} it is easier to see the difference because of the
specificity.

        le ci mlatu cu citka lei finpe
        Each of the three cats eats the fish.

        lei ci mlatu cu citka lei finpe
        The three cats eat the fish.

Obviously, the second one is the one that makes more sense.

I think that in most cases where we use plural in English, we need to use
{lei} (or {loi}) in Lojban, because in most cases we don't want the
distributive properties of plural {le} and {lo}.

{lei} is the easiest gadri as far as how it is affected by negation and
permutation of places, because being a singular term, it commutes with
everything. {le} is also very easy when it is not plural, for the same
reason. When using {le} as plural we have to be careful that we really
mean the plural in the distributive sense.

Bob had said:
> > Surely, it makes sense to say:
> >
> >     .i mi viska re loi mlatu
> >     I see two manifestations of Mr. Cat.
> >     I see two parts of the mass of all cats.

John replies:
> No. For that, you need:
>
>         mi viska [ro] le re loi mlatu
>         I see [all-of] the two parts-of-the-mass-of-all cats.

So you don't like {le re loi tanxe} and yet accept {le re loi mlatu}?

I thought {le re loi mlatu} was "the two masses of all cats".

Jorge