From pycyn@aol.com Thu Jul 04 13:35:22 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 4 Jul 2002 20:35:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 95705 invoked from network); 4 Jul 2002 20:35:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Jul 2002 20:35:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r06.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.102) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Jul 2002 20:35:22 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.21.) id r.a0.294748cf (4231) for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 16:35:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 16:35:18 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] pro-sumti question To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_a0.294748cf.2a560b86_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: 14565 --part1_a0.294748cf.2a560b86_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/4/2002 2:27:35 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > >Now, to be sure, the implicit external > >quantifier on {le} is {ro}, so we are referring to all the dyadic masses I > >have in mind, but that is presumably just the one composed of the dog(s) > >and > >the cat(s). But that does NOT mean we are referring to the WHOLE of that > >mass. Absent some specific indication, we are dealing {pisu'o}ness. > > That doesn't make sense to me. {le broda} refers to each of the > broda I have in mind, be it {le gerku} (each dog), {le gunma} > (each mass), or {le remei} (each pair). It does not refer to > some part of a dog, some part of a mass, or some part of a pair. > For that I'd have to say explicitly {pisu'o le broda}. The > implicit quantifier of {lei} plays no role here. > The second sentence is correct in general, the third for dogs but not for masses: {gerku} refers to dogs in the usual way, {gunma} and {remei} refer to masses in the usual way; the usual way to refer to dogs is as wholes, the usual way to refer to masses is as parts -- that is what the quantifiers on {lei} say. <>Now, clearly if one dog in the mass of critters is tired, >the some part of that mass is tired and so, in Lojban, the mass is tired: >{le >remei cu tatpi}. It may be unreasonable, but it is by the Book. I'm not sure it is by the Book, I don't have it with me now so I can't check, but does it go as far as to say that? I thought it only messed up the implicit quantifier of {lei}. In any case, when the Book makes no sense, I don't follow it.> I don't suppose the Book does say this explicitly -- it is remarkably poor on semantics and ontology. But, on the assumption (which I am obligated to make if I am to learn **Lojban**, rather than a kindred -- or not so -- language) that the quantifiers on {lei} are correct, that has to be the way it works: {le remei} is, in context, exactly equivalent to {lei re danlu} and subject to same interpretation -- if not quite exactly the same grammar. --part1_a0.294748cf.2a560b86_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/4/2002 2:27:35 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


>Now, to be sure, the implicit external
>quantifier on {le} is {ro}, so we are referring to all the dyadic masses I
>have in mind, but that is presumably just the one composed of the dog(s)
>and
>the cat(s).  But that does NOT mean we are referring to the WHOLE of that
>mass.  Absent some specific indication, we are dealing {pisu'o}ness.

That doesn't make sense to me. {le broda} refers to each of the
broda I have in mind, be it {le gerku} (each dog), {le gunma}
(each mass), or {le remei} (each pair). It does not refer to
some part of a dog, some part of a mass, or some part of a pair.
For that I'd have to say explicitly {pisu'o le broda}. The
implicit quantifier of {lei} plays no role here.


The second sentence is correct in general, the third for dogs but not for masses: {gerku} refers to  dogs in the usual way, {gunma}  and {remei} refer to masses in the usual way; the usual way to refer to dogs is as wholes, the usual way to refer to masses is as parts -- that is what the quantifiers on {lei} say.

<>Now, clearly if one dog in the mass of critters is tired,
>the some part of that mass is tired and so, in Lojban, the mass is tired:
>{le
>remei cu tatpi}.  It may be unreasonable, but it is by the Book.

I'm not sure it is by the Book, I don't have it with me now
so I can't check, but does it go as far as to say that? I thought
it only messed up the implicit quantifier of {lei}. In any case,
when the Book makes no sense, I don't follow it.>

I don't suppose the Book does say this explicitly -- it is remarkably poor on semantics and ontology.  But, on the assumption (which I am obligated to make if I am to learn **Lojban**, rather than a kindred -- or not so -- language) that the quantifiers on {lei} are correct, that has to be the way it works: {le remei} is, in context, exactly equivalent to {lei re danlu} and subject to same interpretation -- if not quite exactly the same grammar.

 --part1_a0.294748cf.2a560b86_boundary--