From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sat Dec 17 06:50:24 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 17 Dec 2005 06:50:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1EndNt-0002wY-II for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sat, 17 Dec 2005 06:50:05 -0800 Received: from web81309.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.125]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.54) id 1EndNr-0002wP-Bp for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 17 Dec 2005 06:50:05 -0800 Received: (qmail 63405 invoked by uid 60001); 17 Dec 2005 14:50:00 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=GIpG8YEli52PVxzd7hfJd/X5NQUrsfr8f6jIht9fvdk5Ds9wvHiHMfWo7eSUmpkZ6KAsSAOG5hZ7KuO1wYdBNseKEVqVQi33yRViCcM0lLWHPkO57CTyxU7XETzyv3uppNj2focIviC995cq9ZTubBXv7+0UsS15SecEXzX2+74= ; Message-ID: <20051217145000.63375.qmail@web81309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.230.158.161] by web81309.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 17 Dec 2005 06:50:00 PST Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 06:50:00 -0800 (PST) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: A Proposed Explanation of {gunma} To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <925d17560512161717o10e516a3t8f7b9b22a19036c2@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-archive-position: 10925 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 12/16/05, John E Clifford > wrote: > > or explicitly > > massifying some tiher object like {lu'o lo > > broda}. > > {lu'o lo broda} would have to be equivalent to > {loi broda} > (and they would have to refer to more than one > broda for > lu'o/loi not to be pointless). Neither would be > used to > refer to a mass. If by massifying you mean > something like > {lo gunma be lo broda}, then yes. Sorry, I was going by the wordlist that says lu'o lo broda is the mass whose constituents are lo broda. > > > > From this I get either that you don't > think > > > that > > > > {lo broda} and {loi broda} are the same > > > thing(s) > > > > in different predication relations > > > > > > I do think that they are the same thingS, > > > possibly > > > in the same predication relation even, but > with > > > {loi broda} blocking the distributive > > > interpretation > > > and {lo broda} not blocking it. The plural > is > > > significant > > > because if they were to refer to one thing > the > > > distinction > > > between them vanishes. > > > > I don't get the last point. {loi broda} is > just > > some brodas of whom some property is > predicated > > collectively, {lo broda} is the same guys > without > > specifying whether the predication involved > is > > one way or the other. What distinction is > lost? > > I meant that if there is only one broda, then > it makes > no difference whether you use {lo broda} or > {loi broda}, > and since I take {loi} to be the marked one, > using it > would not make much sense. > > > > I thought you > > > were bringing > > > it up by suggesting that avatars/exemplars > > > would be > > > the constituents of an Urgoo, but I > probably > > > misunderstood. > > > > I don't suppose that Urgoo, Mr. Broda, for > > example, has constituents. > > OK. This is what you had said that led me > astray: > "Given that I > also take you as saying that {lo broda} and > {loi > broda} are the same thing only with difference > in > declared distributivity, I suppose (given your > views on what lo broda is) that loi broda -- > and > hence gunma1 generally -- is some sort of > Urgoo, > at least in many cases. In which case I > suppose > that gunma2 is a list of > avatars/slices/exemplars/... . Do I have any > of > this close to right?" > > My point here is simply that avatars/exemplars > are > not what goes in the x2 of gunma. Because, contrary to what I thought, lo broda and loi broda are not masses. Well, at least not generally. I think that following the wordlist, which has {loi} for masses, is a problem here. We need some other terminology and none is handy at the moment. So, masses have constituents but loi broda is not a mass, whatever it is. OK, that makes things a little clearer. > > > Which seems to mean > > that either you have abandoned Mr. Broda as > the > > referent of {lo broda} -- and with it several > of > > the peculiar properties of xorlo -- > > No, sorry. :) > > But when Mr Broda is the referent of {lo > broda}, > being one single thing, distributivity is > irrelevant. > > >or you are > > using "not a single thing but several things" > in > > a very poetic way, which I can't unpack while > > keeping it connected to the rest of the > > discussion. > > Not a single mass/bunch/group thing, i.e. not a > single > thing composed of several brodas. {lo broda} is > a single > thing (a single broda) in generic reference. Well, not really a broda in them normal sense of the term. but that is an old argument. Let me see what I can make of this. On second thought, let's not; the muddle of distributive and non-distributive predications when applied to singular "gneric" references is just to muddled to sort out, especially when combined with the simultaneous claim that {lo broda} also refers to one or several brodas. I havew always held that xorlo is self-contradictory and this seems to make the point clearer, though I am sure you have a way to wiggle out of it. To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.