From lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRCB9cjeBBoE6WzJRg@googlegroups.com Fri Apr 23 17:26:04 2010 Received: from mail-vw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.212.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O5TC3-0006kh-7K; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:26:03 -0700 Received: by vws20 with SMTP id 20sf3231039vws.16 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:25:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:mime-version:received:received :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-authentication-results:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=k9NlmcBC2b49DtvN1srdI1Hyl+Fk9//UMfDM4GgnIs0=; b=ebt8pzq04VD+hWM9C9jkMMgtFjLpfRVs3r6WKylRI+uRLFm7KHN28ptgR+hqpAuoC8 ugZTOUkKmKSMJXL6OEMrdf4T4AXLwaS61lP5wKr0288IRh4c0L16RgfjBb97G/VPKh7E PTdzb/NsygsciCLOX+vUVlEEsPDSt+wjFSKlI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-authentication-results :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=lQkUSp0YmJw3M0yl1YZc4pzQPabdjS16xFfw83/CRIwUig/rR0WFJYOGSd3E8iHlJ8 OTFbcracQVgOUf4J118wVLvI1GZEBxisVjNyagmXEAZEMQJiXzxVQyna/YWM9IUeJoy0 U6Q3o1YuMDSBAhgNNoTrB3Gmm9T1akDXDs3fs= Received: by 10.220.89.89 with SMTP id d25mr64367vcm.36.1272068737686; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:25:37 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.220.79.85 with SMTP id o21ls30948545vck.0.p; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:25:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.162.3 with SMTP id t3mr172341vcx.23.1272068736621; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:25:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.162.3 with SMTP id t3mr172340vcx.23.1272068736594; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:25:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qy0-f184.google.com (mail-qy0-f184.google.com [209.85.221.184]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id a10si1127376vci.4.2010.04.23.17.25.35; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:25:35 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.221.184 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.221.184; Received: by qyk14 with SMTP id 14so3354843qyk.6 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:25:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.191.76 with SMTP id dl12mr947883qcb.97.1272068735015; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:25:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.79.75 with HTTP; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:25:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4BD22E4C.2000302@gmail.com> References: <6a2c862a-91f0-452e-9a31-0064620d5d06@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> <734238.40743.qm@web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4BD060B7.5020903@gmail.com> <4BD0F4FE.8010106@gmail.com> <4BD1E52B.5040003@gmail.com> <4BD22E4C.2000302@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 21:25:34 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] About plural 'ro' From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.221.184 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 8:33 PM, And Rosta wrote: > > Given your reply, it seems that we differ only in how we use the term > 'referent': > > my "referent" = your "referents (taken together)" > your "referent" = my "primitive subcollectivity of the referent" I (somewhat) object to the "taken together" part, only because then people run with it and assume that they must be doing something together, besides being so "taken". They may be doing something together, but then again they may not. > A further reason why I prefer my version is that it's possible for it to be > clear what the referent is without it being clear what (or how many, etc.) > its primitive subcollectivities are. Only after you have twisted your mind to accept that a collectivity is one of its own subcollectivities, that a collectivity can have one member, and so on. So, yes, once you are used to a way of talking it is clear. >Translate that into your terms, and > it's rather weird: "It's possible for it to be clear what the referents > (taken together) are, without it being clear what each referent is or how > many referents there are". "It's possible for it to be clear what the referent(s) are, without it being clear what each of them is or how many of them there are". The "(s)" is slightly clumsy, granted, but that's the price we pay for talking in a language with obligatory grammatical number. I'm sure in Chinese that part must sound better. :) One advantage I see with plural-reference talk is that it needs less jargon in the metalanguage. mu'o mi'e xorxes -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.