From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed Dec 14 13:54:27 2005 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 63459 invoked from network); 14 Dec 2005 21:54:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.166) by m27.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Dec 2005 21:54:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Dec 2005 21:54:26 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1EmeZr-0008Kd-Km for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:54:23 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1EmeZ7-0008Jr-Lm; Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:53:40 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:53:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1EmeYi-0008Jg-MQ for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:53:12 -0800 Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1EmeYi-0008JZ-DL for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:53:12 -0800 Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:53:12 -0800 Message-ID: <20051214215312.GA3616@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <4398939A.1090806@lojban.org> <20051209012929.GD2106@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <1E7AC75C-B8B7-4749-ADA5-F5FBF8CC4C44@mac.com> <925d17560512091007p194e507t2461a44906f94350@mail.gmail.com> <20051214002702.GO3329@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <925d17560512131738w2a0bbf4bi61a99d240b6e922a@mail.gmail.com> <20051214061237.GF3616@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <925d17560512141021u2f41a11g644faf6abffe7ba6@mail.gmail.com> <20051214213111.GY3616@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <925d17560512141346t2467a547y6ba5967a19169891@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <925d17560512141346t2467a547y6ba5967a19169891@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-archive-position: 10885 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -3.5 (---) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0 X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell Reply-To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Subject: [lojban] Re: A Proposed Explanation of {gunma} X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=JANQPEGFUJh9XBESAnUWeMKqcczZivGW9NNTqRBVMNYVVIP3IQ X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 25281 On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 06:46:54PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > On 12/14/05, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 03:21:16PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > Or {ju'o}. > > > > You must mean jo'u. > > Oops, yes, I did. > > > The problem with jo'u is that it doesn't *mean* anything. You > > can't both be a collective *and* be unmixed; it's total lunacy. > > It's undefined, just like {lo}. jo'u:joi::lo::loi > > > "mi joi do" means nothing whatsoever outside of a predication, > > and it's confusing to talk as though it does. > > We agree then. In particular, it does not refer to a single entity > that contains us. > > > "mi joi do broda" means that you and I together did broda in > > such a way that our involvement cannot reasonably be seperated. > > Masses only have meaning relative to predications. This is > > something that http://philosophy.syr.edu/mckay.html cleared up > > for me. > > Indeed. Then {mi joi do se gunma ko'a} means that you and I, > together, constitute the single entity ko'a. Agreed. > {mi joi do} refers to two things, you and I, Actually, it doesn't mean anything to my mind, but if it did, it would be a single thing: the combination of the two of us (WRT some predication). > whereas {ko'a} refers to a single thing, that which you and I > constitute, let's say a society. Then {mi joi do na du ko'a}. And there we disagree. I insist that assignment of a joi to a name or identifier of any type is exactly du, because for the purposes of any predication, the two things are identical. > > > For me, it is sets that are totally useless. > > > > I disagree, and will fight on this as much as I can. > > Sets in Lojban seem to be like gender in some languages. You just > have to memorize which places require them, and then use sets in > those places. I agree that the gismu that require sets are, in the main, pretty dumb; that's a seperate issue AFAIK. > And no ambiguity whatsoever, as far as I can tell, would result > from using masses in those places instead. In most cases, I agree; set restrictions should instead be non-individual (i.e. set/mass) restrictions. I can't think of any counter-examples off the top of my head, but I bet Kevin can. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/ 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.