From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Sep 08 06:15:41 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 08 Sep 2009 06:15:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ml0Xs-0006SF-KG for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 06:15:41 -0700 Received: from mail-yx0-f171.google.com ([209.85.210.171]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ml0Xl-0006QP-9q for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 06:15:40 -0700 Received: by yxe1 with SMTP id 1so2410793yxe.28 for ; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 06:15:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=5glAxIHjhhk1g7A6K6md6c5uANniUbemTd/BniUZSbA=; b=mTZj3NkFmN7NbpsKDSKrwyv3s9S6tuAUyZKzkx75aOnMCQu4HxAQSHaDUdCnknFarT d7LPA9j9DIrEbH24hDS9cWPl0xQCrxO/R8tN//5/XQpL7/J8LEeNqNyd7LCRrYCaDn07 n4+frU+lWzExl5ynB86r7qeylyaxZDH84lCNQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=ZH60jqWBS4/uOLribEtSLpBgB21mfrcBGPU+puDG2Cvm/rjP54lpsvV4GSulsVFxtc Up0Av4196h1UFsEq7qKtoacu3l3VIAphpjuUHMLh5BypxRd0Ljzi15N0t88uX6hFzOqm Dl0Jat/XTS1R2xidyilBYAlv4LprPstRToCvU= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.90.8.10 with SMTP id 10mr11971344agh.114.1252415726841; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 06:15:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <9ada8ecd0909071709s5181e5d4r8e7803ac95581ad3@mail.gmail.com> References: <9ada8ecd0909051425t78a046f3kddef2869e5c8e7a2@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560909060746n223ad9c7ic88894c3513a6ea1@mail.gmail.com> <9ada8ecd0909061401n35c37197j6ff4fac5b267fc5e@mail.gmail.com> <9ada8ecd0909061426r95b84efu76464f7327430f6c@mail.gmail.com> <395902.46727.qm@web50406.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <9ada8ecd0909061448p2eaa92ep19569f2b66793b76@mail.gmail.com> <386480.83513.qm@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <9ada8ecd0909071709s5181e5d4r8e7803ac95581ad3@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 10:15:26 -0300 Message-ID: <925d17560909080615r662b6fd5h376e2d330671e32f@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban] Re: xorlo From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban-list@lojban.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis X-archive-position: 16107 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 Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 9:09 PM, Squark Rabinovich wrote: > > Entity or not, that's a philosophical question of little relevance, from my > point of view. The important things is understanding how to use this thing. By "this thing" I take it you mean "this word", namely "lo". > And since we need a name for it might as well be "bunch" (it might be "green > tomato" as far as I'm concerned). We do have many names for "lo", it is a word, it is a cmavo, it is a gadri, etc, it is not a bunch. The issue of new entities comes about when discussing what "lo jubme" for example refers to. My answer is that it refers to tables, not to bunches or to a bunch. To refer to bunches there are better words, such as "lo gunma", "lo girzu", "lo selcmi", etc. Saying that "lo jubme" is "a bunch of tables", or anything else besides "tables", only invites confusion, in my opinion > So, do I understand correctly that xorlo > splits the old notion of "mass" into two notions: "mass" and "bunch". Everybody seems to understand it a bit differently, but I wouldn't put it that way. In my understanding, we have: loi = lo gunma be lo lei = lo gunma be le lai = lo gunma be la So loi/lei/lai are fully reducible to lo/le/la. The problem with the old notion of "mass" is that there were several notions mixed together, and there probably still are. >"Mass" > applies to continuous (uncountable) things whereas "bunch" applies to > discrete (countable) things. That's the notion of "mass" related to "mass nouns", and you are right that at least some of the time that was part of what "mass" was supposed to mean in Lojban slang. But it has nothing to do with the classical "lei ci nanmu cu bevri lo pipno", for example. The three men carrying the piano together are very much countable. This has to do with collective predication, not with mass nouns. > Also lo is as specific as le but veridicial? No, "lo", at least in xorlo, is neither specific nor unspecific. "lo" just doesn't mark specificity one way or the other. > How is it possible, then, to refer to unspecific objects? Suppose I want to > say "there exists a broda such that..." or "all broda have the property..." Those are quantified expressions, there was no change in them: "su'o broda cu ..." and "ro broda cu ..." work just as you expect. > Summing up, lo broda is "the bunch of broda" ? I don't think "bunch" helps any, in fact it misleads. The closest English for "lo broda" is "brodas", or perhaps "broda(s)". English doesn't really have a number-neutral and specificity-neutral expression like "lo broda". You have to choose between "brodas" or "the brodas" or "a broda" or "the broda", depending on context. 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.