From pycyn@aol.com Thu Jul 04 17:03:04 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 5 Jul 2002 00:03:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 21246 invoked from network); 5 Jul 2002 00:03:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Jul 2002 00:03:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m05.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.8) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Jul 2002 00:03:04 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.21.) id r.97.2a030455 (4405) for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 20:02:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <97.2a030455.2a563c2a@aol.com> Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 20:02:50 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] pro-sumti question To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_97.2a030455.2a563c2a_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 14575 --part1_97.2a030455.2a563c2a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/4/2002 3:38:56 PM Central Daylight Time, lojban-out@lojban.org writes: > Ahh, i'm using def in '94 cmavo list, which may be in error. > > Yup. {le te fadni} had better refer to a set or come up with a very good reason why not -- and {lo te fadni} is definitely about a set. An INDIVIDUAL set (or several individual sets taken separately) but a set all the same. Where did this idea come from: it is an individual, set or mass of the appropriate sort, {le'i gunma} is about a set of masses and {le gunma} is about a mass. So, {le remei} is about a mass with two elements. As xorxes pointed out, {sumti} is used ambiguously in English: for both the linguistic expression and its referent. It is not ambiguous in Lojban (it is the expression) and I try to use it that way in English -- and take others as doing so as well, if possible. What DO you mean by "the sumti themselves"? Your text reads like something that fluctuates over the two English meanings and, when read conistently in one reading or the other, is clearly false (use-mention ambiguity in a peculiarly Lojbanic form). Well, unless the number is 1 in each case, this will not be a pair. "All" is a lousy reading in English (and a bad translation from Latin and Greek), "every" is better: the reference is each taken separately, not to any lumping (mass or set) of them -- {le} always comes down to a conjunction. There is no separate level of the sort you mention between the individual dogs and cats and their mass. Either "sumti" means the referents, in which case we are talking about some number of animals, apparently two, but that not guaranteed or mentioned earlier, making the anaphora non-functional. Or "sumti" means the expressions and the claim that we are talking about them is simply false. --part1_97.2a030455.2a563c2a_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/4/2002 3:38:56 PM Central Daylight Time, lojban-out@lojban.org writes:

Ahh, i'm using def in '94 cmavo list, which may be in error.

Yup.

<This is bullshit. "*le* remei" can't refer to a set no matter what x1
of remei is. le == individual, le'i == set, lei == mass.>
{le te fadni} had better refer to a set or come up with a very good reason why not -- and {lo te fadni} is definitely about a set. An INDIVIDUAL set (or several individual sets taken separately) but a set all the same. Where did this idea come from: it is an individual, set or mass of the appropriate sort, {le'i gunma} is about a set of masses and {le gunma} is about a mass. So, {le remei} is about a mass with two elements.

<I was talking about the sumti themselves -- that's the only way this works.
See below:>

As xorxes pointed out, {sumti} is used ambiguously in English: for both the linguistic expression and its referent. It is not ambiguous in Lojban (it is the expression) and I try to use it that way in English -- and take others as doing so as well, if possible. What DO you mean by "the sumti themselves"? Your text reads like something that fluctuates over the two English meanings and, when read conistently in one reading or the other, is clearly false (use-mention ambiguity in a peculiarly Lojbanic form).

<I was going on bad definition remei. the point was the "sumti smuni" part.
I'm talking about a pair of things refered to by sumti. The two sumti
referents mentioned were:
all of somenumber of dogs
all of somenumber of cats>

Well, unless the number is 1 in each case, this will not be a pair. "All" is a lousy reading in English (and a bad translation from Latin and Greek), "every" is better: the reference is each taken separately, not to any lumping (mass or set) of them -- {le} always comes down to a conjunction. There is no separate level of the sort you mention between the individual dogs and cats and their mass.

<The mei solution works because we're talking about pairs of sumti,
not pairs of animals.>
Either "sumti" means the referents, in which case we are talking about some number of animals, apparently two, but that not guaranteed or mentioned earlier, making the anaphora non-functional. Or "sumti" means the expressions and the claim that we are talking about them is simply false.

--part1_97.2a030455.2a563c2a_boundary--