From lojban-out@lojban.org Thu Jun 08 07:55:44 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 27980 invoked from network); 8 Jun 2006 14:55:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m23.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Jun 2006 14:55:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Jun 2006 14:55:43 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FoLlq-0000YS-AE for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 08 Jun 2006 07:46:02 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FoLin-0000WP-RR; Thu, 08 Jun 2006 07:42:57 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 08 Jun 2006 07:42:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FoLiK-0000WG-9t for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 08 Jun 2006 07:42:24 -0700 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.182]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FoLiG-0000W8-RT for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 08 Jun 2006 07:42:24 -0700 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id t32so535050pyc for ; Thu, 08 Jun 2006 07:42:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.109.2 with SMTP id l2mr2466087pym; Thu, 08 Jun 2006 07:42:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.39.13 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Jun 2006 07:42:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 08:42:18 -0600 In-Reply-To: <925d17560606080643r55da8773gd4fad0bdac0c505a@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060606175408.36256.qmail@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <925d17560606071637u1dfabac7n6e3551086a616f58@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560606080643r55da8773gd4fad0bdac0c505a@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-archive-position: 11765 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: maxim.katcharov@gmail.com X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 2:3:4:0 X-eGroups-From: "Maxim Katcharov" From: "Maxim Katcharov" Reply-To: maxim.katcharov@gmail.com Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=PTCyS_MHS_hYhKNw0hIMqFwYRLKuf3YBRCVRReyFzKVnBuZYNA X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 26186 On 6/8/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > 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. No, true. This is an issue of English pragmatics being brought in to a language that doesn't need them. {[da poi sruri] cu gunma [lo tadni]} contains no {po'o}. If you wanted to specify that only students surround the building, then you'd do just that - and it's not done here. > > lo gunma be lo tadni cu sruri le dinju > A group that has students as components surrounds the building. > > would be true. Yes > > da poi sruri le dinju cu gunma lo tadni > Something which surrounds the building has students as components. > > would also be true. Yes > > 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. No, A by itself is a component part of D. My lungs are organs that are in my body at a certain position. They, by themselves, are a component part of me. There might not be a D if there wasn't an A and a B, yes, but that's beside the point, since there /is/ an A, a B, and a C. But if there wasn't an A and a B, it wouldn't matter that they weren't there, because the "group" wouldn't be there in the first place. The relationship wouldn't even be a subject of discussion. This seems a bit like McKay's "shipmates" line of reasoning - I went into that subject in a bit more detail in my June 5th reply to aleks. A generic statement of my objection is that I don't see why this relationship should get a unique treatment. > > {gunma} means "x1 consists of x2". > {se gunma} means "x1 conform x2". > "consists" is "includes"+po'o. {gunma} means "x1 is a mass/team/aggregate/whole, together composed of components x2, considered jointly" - mass, team, aggregate, whole, together, composed, components, jointly - all of these are gloss words for the relationship. Saying that it means a mere "consists of" is... strange. "conform" means to become or be similar, but I assume that you mean the "together form" definition. Yes, they together form x2 - in the sense of "they are something together: a group / mass / aggregate / whole / compound / form" > > > 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" > Ah. No, I don't need it to make my expansion. 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.