From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Sat Mar 6 22:46:25 2010 Reply-To: Jorge Llambias Sender: Lojban list Date: Thu Dec 14 19:37:04 1995 From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: TECH: masses X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu, jorge@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Thu Dec 14 19:37:04 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Message-ID: pc: > The collective sense seems to be > the one we get the most use out of , so we should probably tie it to > _loi_ and its analogs. ui i ko jundi i ko jundi > I think that resulting form would be a good > base for teh other two notions -- the verbal side of masses properly > speaking, certainly (especially if _loi_ is _su'o loi_), and at least > plausibly for species. I didn't very well understand what you meant by the "verbal side of masses". For the individual-as-species case, I'm happy with {lo'e}: lo'e cinfo cu citka lo'e rectu The lion eats meat. The lion is a meat eater. la djan kalte lo'e cinfo John hunts the lion. John hunts lions. John is a lion hunter. I don't think Lojban makes the distinction between "shiftingly bounded continuities" and its opposite, at least not with any article. If I put {pa lo djacu} in a bucket, and then I put another {pa lo djacu} in it, and then I show the result to you, you will hardly want to say that the bucket contains {re lo djacu}. On the other hand, if I put {pa lo mlatu} and then another {pa lo mlatu}, you will see {re lo mlatu} in the bucket. If I cut a {pa lo djacu} in half, I end up with {re lo djacu}. If I cut a {pa lo mlatu} in half, I do not end up with {re lo mlatu}. This is because {djacu} is normally a shiftingly bounded continuity, while {mlatu} is not, and the gadri don't change that property. So {mlatu} and {djacu} behave differently under fission and fusion because of their intrinsic semantics, not because of any external marker. Jorge