From sentto-44114-2089-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Tue Feb 29 03:14:28 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 23165 invoked from network); 29 Feb 2000 03:14:26 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 29 Feb 2000 03:14:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 6110 invoked by uid 40001); 29 Feb 2000 03:18:04 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 6107 invoked from network); 29 Feb 2000 03:18:03 -0000 Received: from hh.egroups.com (208.48.218.10) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 29 Feb 2000 03:18:03 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-2089-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.36] by hh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 29 Feb 2000 03:18:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 2266 invoked from network); 29 Feb 2000 03:18:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 29 Feb 2000 03:18:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fn1.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca) (198.161.206.8) by mta2.onelist.org with SMTP; 29 Feb 2000 03:18:00 -0000 Received: from freenet.edmonton.ab.ca (13496@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca [198.161.206.2]) by fn1.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA34018 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 20:16:53 -0700 Received: from localhost (reciproc@localhost) by freenet.edmonton.ab.ca (8.8.7/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA55928 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 20:17:55 -0700 To: lojban@onelist.com In-Reply-To: <20000228193502.14433.qmail@hotmail.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@onelist.com; contact lojban-owner@onelist.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@onelist.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 20:17:55 -0700 (MST) X-eGroups-From: reciproc@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca From: reciproc@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca Reply-To: reciproc@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca Subject: Re: [lojban] Use and abuse of sets Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: reciproc@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca > >OTOH, if you want to say that every member of a > >group performs some action on every other member, using a set is > >the most clear. > > Yes, but does this situation ever come up? Or at least as > often as to require a whole set of cmavo to describe it? I agree wholeheartedly with la xorxes. The only actual example I have seen of the set cmavo which is even vaguely useful is le'i ratci barda "The set of rats is large" "There are many rats" Which is much more simply and clearly expressed "so'i ratci" or something similar. However, there should be a gismu for mathematical set, since this *is* a logical language after all -- we shouldn't be forced to use lujvo. > >Officially, only "le'i" is allowed, but I think that using > >"lei" opens up interesting and useful distinctions such as this one. > > I don't think that the gismu list suggesting a set > for a given place means that *only* sets are allowed > officially. I usually use masses where the gismu list > suggests sets. {mi'o} is {mi joi do}, so if only sets were > allowed with {simxu} you couldn't say something like > {mi'o daxysi'u}, you'd have to say {mi ce do daxysi'u}. An interesting thought: Since in Lojban, masses are considered units, wouldn't the appropriate term for a mass be {sezda'i}? Although admittedly this leads to ambiguity as to whether members of the mass are hitting themselves. Bah, I've probably just gone too long without conlanging :)... co'omi'e xarmuj. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ WANT FREE MAGAZINES? Sample over 500 magazines in 30 categories-- all for FREE at FreeShop.com, your source for thousands of free and trial offers! http://click.egroups.com/1/1610/1/_/17627/_/951794281/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com