From lojban-out@lojban.org Thu Dec 15 10:11:39 2005 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 28016 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2005 18:11:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.172) by m30.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Dec 2005 18:11:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Dec 2005 18:11:38 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1EmxZn-0002YY-VZ for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 10:11:36 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1EmxYn-0002Xr-J7; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 10:10:36 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 15 Dec 2005 10:10:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1EmxYO-0002Xh-50 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 10:10:08 -0800 Received: from web81312.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.128]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.54) id 1EmxYM-0002Xa-FY for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 10:10:07 -0800 Received: (qmail 77145 invoked by uid 60001); 15 Dec 2005 18:10:05 -0000 Message-ID: <20051215181005.77143.qmail@web81312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.230.168.167] by web81312.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 10:10:04 PST Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 10:10:04 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <925d17560512150739yf804ea6r3ff724df2d5020e8@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: 10895 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=yyp4qwEhls4kMJ5Wuxm1SMZmqJfkj6JvP7KisGClDLc4cydyFg X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 25291 --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > Here are some of my thoughts on loi/joi and > gunma/cmima/pagbu. Gee, it's nice to agree with xorxes on a potentially controversial issue. > > 1- I will avoid using the term "mass" or any > other similar noun > to talk about how loi/joi work. This is in part > to avoid confusion > with English "mass nouns", but mainly to avoid > a reifying > interpretation of loi/joi which any noun > automatically brings > in with it. This is not to say, of course, that > we can't talk in > Lojban about groups, collections, assortments, > bunches, > sets, crowds, packs or any other creatures with > constituent > members. Those things are perfectly valid > things to talk about, > but in my opinion loi/joi do not by themselves > bring in any > reference to any of them. If we talk about a > mass of some > things, then we are immediately talking about a > new entity > with properties of its own, and then we have to > discuss how > properties are inherited back and forth between > this new thing > and its constituents, and that is really not > needed for loi/joi. Well, while {joi} (and perhaps {loi}) don't call for new entities, they don't prohibit them either. And if you are a traditionalist in requiring singular reference/quantification, then such references are required. The nice thing about bunches is that they work either way and the inheritance is limited to what is already needed in terms of distributive and collective predication. > 2- The ONLY thing loi/joi do is block a > distributive reading > for its referents. {joi} always involves at > least two things, > one on either side. {loi} need not in principle > involve at least > two, but it makes little sense to block a > distributive reading > for one single thing, so at least pragmatically > it tends to > involve at least two things. > > 3- loi/joi contrast with lo/jo'u which do not > block a distributive > reading (but neither do they force one). For > example, it is > perfectly acceptable for me to say something > like: > > la djan jo'u la meris pu jgari lo tutci gi'e > co'a zbasu lo zdani > John and Mary grabbed the tools and started > to build a house. > > where "grabbed the tools" can be distributive > (each one of them > grabbed a different tool) and "started to build > a house" collective > (they started to build the same house > together). It is possible > to be more precise if desired: > > la djan .e la meris pu jgari lo tutci ije la > djan joi la meris > co'a zbasu lo zdani > > where {.e} in the first sentence is > distributive and {joi} in the > second is non-distributive. This precision is > often unnecessary, > but it is available when needed. {lo} and > {jo'u} are useful because > we often want to apply both distributive and > non-distributive > properties to the same referents at the same > time. > > {ko'a .e ko'e} is distributive > {ko'a joi ko'e} is non-distributive > {ko'a jo'u ko'e} is silent on distributivity. > > {ro broda} is distributive > {loi broda} is non-distributive > {lo broda} is silent on distributivity. It should be noted -- pragmatically again -- that in contexts where the distributivity/collectivity is at issue, {lo} becomes the marker for distributivity just by not being {loi}. But such situations are are rare and so {lo} usually functions simply as the designator for the things involved, without indication of how they are they are predicated of. On the other hand, the gadri and quantifier methods of indicating predication are technically inadequate since they do not say what kind of predication is involved in the description itself: "Those who (together) surround the building are red-haired" might need to be distinguished from "Those who (each) surround the bulding are very long walls" for example. The gadri indiciation also complicates collapsing cases of two kinds of predication with a common core: "The wall (by itself) and the students (together) surround the bulding" and as above "John and Mary (separately) picked up tools and (together) started to build a house." Context does not always solve the question and accuracy -- using gadri or ,e, connectives -- does not allow the collapse in Lojban (which currently has no fall-back device). Finally, {ro broda} for distributive predication would only work if it is firmly in mind that it is short for {ro lo broda}, since this would no longer be the same as {ro da poi broda}, another natural reading. > 4- Using {loi} for substances and generics is > in my opinion pragmatically > wrong, because in order to block distributivity > {loi} has to first > bring the issue > up, and with substances and generics the issue > should not even arise. I find > {le kabri cu vasru lo djacu} much better than > {le kabri cu vasru loi djacu} > for "the cup contains water", even if both are > theoretically possible. > {loi djacu} brings in the totally irelevant > possibility of the distribution > of quantities of water, just in order to block > it. I am not sure what this means exactly. The point of using {loi} to construct generic or substance expressions (mass nouns in the usal sense)is exactly that, in Lojban, such notions are just individuals taken (predicated of) collectively and so inherently different from distributive cases. the possibility of distributing over these individuals is not irrelevant; it is simply not what is going on in these cases. It would be irrelevant in Urgoo interpretations of substances, but that is not Lojban's way. > 5- I think {gunma} should mean: > > "x1 is a > mass/group/bunch/aggregation/collection/assortment > consisting of constituents x2" > > where x1 is a single entity and x2 are many > entities that together > (non-distributively, obviously!) constitute x1. > So for example: > > le kamni cu gunma la djan joi la meris > The committee is formed by John and Mary. > > la djan .e la meris cu cmima le kamni > Both John and Mary are members of the > committee. One is tempted to say things like {loi broda cu gunma lo broda}, even though it is not *required* that {loi broda} and {lo broda} refer to the same objects taken together or not. > 6- {pagbu} differs from {cmima} in that {pagbu} > is a transitive > relationship and {cmima} is not. If A is a part > of B and B is a > part of C, then A is a part of C, but if A is a > member of B and > B is a member of C, then generally A need not > be a member > of C. {pagbu} will not always work for "part" if transitivity is maintained, since I am a part of society and my liver is a part of me, but my liver is not a part of society. Presumably the first of these should be {cmima} or even some more specific word. The "in" relation for bunches ("among" for plurals) is transitive, but {pagbu} feels wrong for it -- probably refoecting the aura of the English word again. > {pagbu} is not much related to joi/loi: > > lo xislu cu pagbu lo karce > A wheel is part of a car. > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > > 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. > > 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.