From lojban-out@lojban.org Fri Dec 16 12:44:12 2005 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 70198 invoked from network); 16 Dec 2005 20:44:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 16 Dec 2005 20:44:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Dec 2005 20:44:11 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1EnMQd-0003Vv-Vp for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 12:43:48 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1EnMNl-0003UZ-AC; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 12:40:52 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 16 Dec 2005 12:40:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1EnMNI-0003UQ-0w for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 12:40:20 -0800 Received: from web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.121]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.54) id 1EnMNG-0003UI-SB for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 12:40:19 -0800 Received: (qmail 4988 invoked by uid 60001); 16 Dec 2005 20:40:17 -0000 Message-ID: <20051216204017.4986.qmail@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.230.168.167] by web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 12:40:17 PST Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 12:40:17 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <925d17560512161009tfe500fexec0e892b169883b5@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: 10913 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0 X-eGroups-From: John E Clifford From: John E Clifford Reply-To: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Subject: [lojban] Re: A Proposed Explanation of {gunma} X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=5mNIULClxerOVqPYhwdyUqoxk1L1-kFBnwhpJq0LpDdmLHTI9g X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 25309 --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 12/16/05, John E Clifford > wrote: > > It does, however, point to > > another place where the gadri solution does > not > > work -- and a much more common one than the > > previous peculiarities: when the sumti is not > a > > description at all. > > {lo'u ko'a} for non-distributive and {ro ko'a} > for distributive. > > > The immediate idea was using something like > the > > {fV} series to show places (mark on the > predicate > > as it were,)so > > {ko'a ko'e ko'i broda fe d fu c gi'e (I > suspect > > it has to be a different connective at this > > point) brode fa c fu d vau (maybe this will > have > > to change as well) fo'a fo'e fo'i} > > Actually, if d and c are syntactic sumti, that > parses > correctly as is. So all you would need is to > add two > members of KOhA (or possibly just one plus a > -nai version). Then you would have {le sruri > be fa d} > and {le sruri be fa c} for the description > forms, > which could also be shortened to {le d sruri} > and > {le c sruri} (as long as you didn't have to use > another > sumti in that (possesive) position). Better and better > > > Ulish? > > > > > Able to occur in a wide variety of contexts, > even > > if not literally after (or before) absolutely > any > > word. > > >From "universalish"? Type face problem: it was "ui" not "ul." Has a distribution like member of the selma'o that includes {ui}. > Searching the web I can only find an Ulish > Booker > that plays for the Pittsburgh Steelers: > > > > Back to something you said earlier, namely > that > > gunma1 stands for a single thing and gunma2 > > stands for the several things that comprise > it. > > While you are objecting bunches (I think -- > you > > may just be pointing out that the bunches > theses > > so far are not quite right for plural > > quantification/reference), > > Actually, I neither object nor endorse them. I > only refrained > from using any noun (like "mass" or "bunch") to > designate > the loi/joi sumti so as to avoid as much as > posible any > notion of reification. > > > I wonder what one > > thing you have in mind for gunma1. > > Anything with constituents: groups, bunches, > aggregates, > stacks, crowds, committees, congregations, etc. > I just don't > want it as a special grammatical object. In English? It seems that it is in Lojban, at least often. I gather that your objection is metaphysical, which is fine. The objections to plural quantification are also metaphysical at hear. I picked "bunch" because it seemed to me to carry the least metaphysical freight and indeed could easily be read either way (with perhaps slightly different stress patterns). The point of bunches is that the theses seem to be the same whichever metaphysics you support. (McKay's hollering against the unversal fusion principle is again apparently metaphysical rather than formaal, since in Chapter 6, T23 he proves that every two pluralities have a unique sum -- and indeed the stronger claim -- T22--that if there are any pluralities at all there is one that includes everything. And, of course, he has used brackets throughout as though they gave names of things.) > > 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 > > "Hence" is inappropriate there, since {loi > broda} would not > be the typical sumti to put in the x1 of gunma. Now that is interesting. I would have thought that {loi broda} was an archetypal mass. If not it, what? > -- 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? > > I think the best gismu for avatars/exemplars > (not too sure about > slices) is {mupli} (but not with its official > place structure, so > I will use a lujvo instead): > > la fidos cu selkaimupli lo gerku > Fido is an instance of a dog. > > I don't think the avatar/exemplar/token/... > relation has a lot to do > with {gunma}. I can say: > > le kanmi cu gunma la djan jo'u la meris > The committee consists of John and Mary. > > or: > > lo kanmi cu gunma lo prenu > Committees consist of people. > > So it seems to be orthogonal to genericity. Someday I need to find out what is the meaning in Lojban speak of "orthogonal;" I don't get "at right angle to" even as a metaphor (or rather it makes sense as at least two conflicting metaphors and I don't see enough usage to figure which is intended). >>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 or that you don't think that masses are just are things in collective predication, leaving it open what they are exactly. Or both, of course. In either case, I don't see what that has to do with genericity, which I tend to read as your take on at least {lo broda}. 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.