From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Jun 08 06:43:49 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 08 Jun 2006 06:43:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FoKnJ-0007xK-KL for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 08 Jun 2006 06:43:29 -0700 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.238]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FoKnF-0007xC-9M for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 08 Jun 2006 06:43:29 -0700 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i5so605381wra for ; Thu, 08 Jun 2006 06:43:23 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=hQ9yvm4VPI81xj9LTi27OO24Z6rtR5kEuv7gIsdAI0jYc8ZZEOkaF+/Zvd+4Mle4PLiSPteU37XmUqZNiR6gmZ8/O6iEiJIEFiwa3SGc5xHPokeH/npBUXElqO6ni4XBUHagIBr6Rwm/hGOwD1YuZgzAbuY7pkePI6kRiDljKFU= Received: by 10.65.216.13 with SMTP id t13mr1681218qbq; Thu, 08 Jun 2006 06:43:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.65.237.19 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Jun 2006 06:43:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560606080643r55da8773gd4fad0bdac0c505a@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 10:43:23 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060606175408.36256.qmail@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <925d17560606071637u1dfabac7n6e3551086a616f58@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11764 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On 6/8/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > My take on it is that > {cmima} concerns things seen more seperately - a squadron of planes, > family of bears, [...]. {gunma} would concern things that look like > they're quite close together - a pencil, a book, a car, a body. > {pagbu} would be the word to use when you don't care to detail if you > see them dispersed or visibly combined. If your take on {gunma} is that the x2 is distributive, then you cannot expand {loi tadni} as {lo gunma be lo tadni}. Consider this case: The building is surrounded by students and professors together. Then: loi tadni cu sruri le dinju Students surround the building. is false. lo gunma be lo tadni cu sruri le dinju A group that has students as components surrounds the building. would be true. da poi sruri le dinju cu gunma lo tadni Something which surrounds the building has students as components. would also be true. So you must either take the x2 of gunma to be non-distributive, or you need a different expansion for {loi tadni}. > But it doesn't really matter to me which exact interpretations are > given: all of these have the same format - there's one aggregate, and > component parts of it. {pagbu} and {cmima} are both like that, yes. If A and B and C are parts of D, then A by itself is a part of D, and B by itself is a part of D, and C by itself is a part of D. If A and B and C are members of D, then A by itself is a member of D, and B by itself is a member of D, and C by itself is a member of D. That's what we mean by saying that the x1 of {pagbu} and the x1 of {cmima} are distributive. But {se gunma] is different: if A and B and C conform D, then A by itself does not conform D, B by itself does not conform D and C by itself does not conform D. Only together, jointly, do A, B and C conform D. {gunma} means "x1 consists of x2". {se gunma} means "x1 conform x2". > I'd disagree with that. It's a "mass/team/aggregate/whole, together > composed of components...". "Consists" is a special term, it has very > specific pragmatics attached to it. {gunma} does mean "consists of". But even if you think {gunma} means something else, the predicate that you need to make your expansion of {loi} is one that means "x1 consists of x2", not one that means "x1 has component x2" 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.