Message-ID: <b3.61695b.26ed7ddb@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 20:14:19 EDT
Subject: Re: why no posts? III
To: lojban@egroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: pycyn@aol.com
Content-Length: 1229
Lines: 20

While there are cmavo for converting (reference to) a number of individuals 
into (...) a mass or a set, and masses to set, and conversely all around, the 
relationships among these various entities remains controversial -- or 
rather, how to say what with them, or what some saying with them means does.  
Sets have little to do with their members except to specify a common property 
they possess and to count them up for a cardinal.  Masses have properties 
that are the "sums" of the relevant properties of their members, but just 
what that means varies from predicate to predicate -- and perhaps from place 
to place around a predicate -- as the references are used as sumti.  Even the 
default quantifiers are open to some question: there are many cases where, 
for example, {piro} seems the natural quantifier in oblique positions with 
{lo} -- even if only a part of a mass acts, the whole is acted upon (a small 
group stormed the Bastille but the whole people suffered the consequences).  
Sometimes.  

Probably a whole page of words newly coined, English expression not 
satisfactorily translated into lb, and lb words whose meanings are unclear 
could be added here, but I leave them for a later page.