Message-Id: <m0sdhYV-0000ZHC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Wed, 2 Aug 1995 13:09:39 EDT
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: lu'a
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 2778
Lines: 72

pc:
> lu'i strips away the modifications to get to just the set (le, lei, le'e
> to le'i, Ax e {broda}, Mas({broda}), Avg({broda}) to {broda})
>
> lu'a takes the underlying set distributively (lei, le'i, le'e to le, etc.)
>
> lu'o takes the underlying set to its mass (le, le'i, le'e to lei)

I think I don't agree. First, I don't think it is really necessary
to think of an underlying set, but that's not really important.
The real disagreement is this: you seem to be saying that {lu'i lo plise}
{lu'i loi pise} and {lu'i lo'i plise} all mean the same thing, but
they don't (or shouldn't, it would be a rather useless convention).
I think they should mean:

        lu'i lo plise: a set of at least one apple.

        lu'i loi plise: a set whose sole element is a mass of apples.

        lu'i lo'i plise: a set whose sole element is the set of all apples.

And of course, there's

        lu'i mu lo plise: a set of exactly five apples.

as well as more complicated things like:

        lu'i re lu'o mu lo plise: a set whose two elements are masses
                                  of five apples each.

If all that {lu'i} does is strip away all other modifications, what's
the point of it? Why not just {lo'i}?

The same story goes for {lu'o} and {lu'a} as well.

>  I take it that lu'a le
> selcku is a repetitive redundancy (or else illegal), since it convert a
> distributive reference to a set into a distributive reference to that set;

I don't agree. {lu'a} simpli treats its sumti as a mass or a set.
I don't see any problem with {lu'a le selcmi} = "an element of
the set". What would be the point of having it if all it does is
strip away other gadris?

> lu'a ci le selcku might make sense, bringing us down to a new set
> (assuming that I was calling more than three things selcku originally).

No, to talk about one of the three books one would say {lo ci le selcku}.
{lu'a ci le selcku}, if it makes any sense, should be a component common
to each of the three books in question.

> But even starting with lei selcku, lu'a lei selcku does not get us bits
> and pieces of selckus (whatever they are, books?) but rather just back to
> le selcku again (barring other quantifiers again).

I agree.

>  Massification is a logical operation, not a
> Waring blender.

Of course it is. but you don't need to refer to the mass always in terms
of its components. Consider this:

lei pare plise cu gunma  i mi citka re lu'a le gunma
The twelve apples are a mass. I eat two components of the mass.

The second sentence should not say that I eat two masses. To say that
I can simply say {mi citka re le gunma}. The whole point of the lu'a
series is that they work on top of the previous gadri. If they are
going to bypass them then there's no point in having them.

Jorge