From lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRC28cDuBBoExhugLQ@googlegroups.com Sun May 15 13:34:18 2011 Received: from mail-gw0-f61.google.com ([74.125.83.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QLi0v-0006zO-Fr; Sun, 15 May 2011 13:34:17 -0700 Received: by gwb11 with SMTP id 11sf5069044gwb.16 for ; Sun, 15 May 2011 13:34:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:x-beenthere:received-spf :x-yahoo-newman-property:x-yahoo-newman-id:message-id:x-ymail-osg :x-mailer:references:date:from:subject:to:in-reply-to:mime-version :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post :list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gi4zGZqL1OkK455p8y5Npmf93cYHvEERAMjoIDav+yQ=; b=nsjoIH+jK+rKhSv0IjLEXUzd6w21kRfjHgeHIkD5qQgosBLOKfrZIZ+vp2TYsniyIZ QvQJa1m9fwWrb+nnvD2NemayydF7R4ghsU0s+phq38bBaJCS5nWoLcVPoiyLiNV46WRb oV1O6PPzdf7X423r7sHbwOSw86KUqEb+vE8w0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-yahoo-newman-property:x-yahoo-newman-id :message-id:x-ymail-osg:x-mailer:references:date:from:subject:to :in-reply-to:mime-version:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=R4iZ2OqfJTu0mVHLcH9/bokl0Dgo/2v8jxPwLm04ozUQF38TG4WPbCRopRAIJD7WYM utkqC5Jir7gRkuEnk+MY79BfkJLuqyN7mclIvZul8+W71covCWwH5DlYBEu+y9kIXFxo 5CeZP+SiBBe98v2ZQASDdaOJhyJlzikAyithc= Received: by 10.101.1.3 with SMTP id d3mr347662ani.4.1305491638681; Sun, 15 May 2011 13:33:58 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.101.205.15 with SMTP id h15ls459821anq.6.gmail; Sun, 15 May 2011 13:33:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.101.165.11 with SMTP id s11mr1475638ano.20.1305491637992; Sun, 15 May 2011 13:33:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.101.165.11 with SMTP id s11mr1475637ano.20.1305491637962; Sun, 15 May 2011 13:33:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm9-vm1.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com (nm9-vm1.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com [66.94.237.251]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id p17si718742ano.2.2011.05.15.13.33.57; Sun, 15 May 2011 13:33:57 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.237.251 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.94.237.251; Received: from [66.94.237.195] by nm9.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 May 2011 20:33:57 -0000 Received: from [66.94.237.125] by tm6.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 May 2011 20:33:57 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1030.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 May 2011 20:33:57 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-5 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 610451.90740.bm@omp1030.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 57480 invoked by uid 60001); 15 May 2011 20:33:57 -0000 Message-ID: <406208.54874.qm@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: 3wlVkOMVM1leRqJE3d.7WsMOxxkAb9WPX7E7MyNGgJbBrvL jDP4dsSZYnkD3cScAfqmDW_dIcr9azzzWnSwSJBl2p9RHpfNFPGKkhzC.8aU u1Z2OwHD9.HFOo_kIWi7ZHFzOqzlyORwNwegzIYV4fnVqh1QqOTq2mF3Z75N bvfpuWyay0ZaDKBeO7XMANUuDJph7N4tvQ03Av1_9yluBzRwSFDNUCLyl9Je bYEag1BFLZbQrEiH7in_.LqfPdCw1LhjepzMKaXiJMIBrZlbyCzgWN_TQXRH g64A_uAnjIkVMdPwyk73.a1YyuikQV1QQQlDfQhpQ0x5O8n9cn1ARW9pjwb9 yf.Pteu1TK5GXrdy17QBGD_SGfJa3670CpD8V.DE.L9No9xhO0hQhOl8liHW OWmUGFIqjuXqiJSbCUgsvkjVu71HYVivXaj5J7uBKB_CVj0iREPeWSmZ.YK. BBnOc8LpY28d6wEtInIItKtQpUT7ogSkgQU6bd4EXazo- Received: from [99.92.108.41] by web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 15 May 2011 13:33:57 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/567 YahooMailWebService/0.8.111.303096 References: <340069.36890.qm@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 13:33:57 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: Re: [lojban] Masses To: lojban@googlegroups.com In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: kali9putra@yahoo.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.237.251 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=kali9putra@yahoo.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@yahoo.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Definitely not for Lojban-beginners. There is a formal system (actually a= =20 family of them) which are open to a variety of interpretations: mereology (= the=20 part-whole relation, Lesniewski), the calculus of individuals (Leonard, Goo= dman,=20 Quine) and plural reference (and quantification) (McKay et al). At the sys= tems=20 core is a relation , # (not what generally used, but machine don't offer th= e=20 usual) which is reflexive (a # a), transitive (a#b & b#c =3D> a#c) and=20 antisymmetric (a#b & b#a =3D> a=3Db) and is that which holds between (depen= ding on=20 interp) members and L-sets, parts and individuals, components and plurals. = =20 Three other theses are also useful to know (using {} in a set theoretical s= ort=20 of way for the moment) {a}=3Da and {a{bc}} =3D {{ab)c) and {ab}=3D{ba}. T= alking=20 about sets makes this all very confusing, since these wholes don't behave l= ike=20 sets in almost any way (# seems to be a confusion of membership and inclusi= on,=20 for example). Thinking of individuals works better, if you think of an=20 individual as something that can have a name or be a value of a variable. = But=20 once you get that far, the last step is just to drop the {}s and take the l= ist=20 of members as itself a perfectly good individual, just no longer called a s= et or=20 even an individual. So, that is the theory that underlies much of xorlo (t= hough=20 xorlo was in play before its relation to this theory was noticed). xorlo is one of the later steps in Logjam for working with a cluster of con= cepts=20 of which one -- the most often perplexing one -- was mass. Once xorlo was i= n=20 place and set on a firm theoretical ground, we no longer needed the various= =20 notions of mass, since we could reproduce the various desired effects using= =20 xorlo and some related notions. But now to mention mass is to bring back t= o=20 mind (and maybe even to discussion) all the old confusions. The fact that = CLL=20 was still back in the confusion times doesn't help at all, since some folk = have=20 now grown up with the mess. Hopefully that is being suppressed over at=20 Lojban-beginner, but apparently not in time for you. What xorlo did eventua= lly=20 was to remove the distinction between a mass (in one useful sense of that= =20 expression) and the set from which it grew and move the different propertie= s of=20 sets over to different ways the one set (sorry, the set habit dies hard) re= lates=20 to the property in question, collectively (the old mass sense) or=20 distributively. Since the distributive sense can always be expressed by th= e use=20 of external quantifiers, there was no need for a special form for that. So = the=20 unquantified form could be used for the collective sense. However, it was= =20 thought (and practice shows this was a correct thought), that there was als= o=20 needed a neutral expression, unmarked for either collective or distributive= . =20 This role was given to simple forms, without external quantifiers. Then th= e=20 somewhat shakier thought came along that we didn't really need a separate f= orm=20 for collective use, since the use of the simple form was generally clear an= d,=20 when not, the matter was easily rectified. So there is not unequivocal=20 collective form. Sets have the properties of their members distributively = and=20 have proeprties of their own collectively. 1. Yes, but it is clearer as {ro lo jenmi cu sanci} 2. Yes (when they do in fact form an army) , clearer would be {lo sanci cu= mi'e=20 lo jenmi} (I am woreking blind at the moment so I may have the central rela= tion=20 wrong) 3 Absolute individuals, I guess (things such that they are their only memb= er),=20 though even that may not work with some predicates. BTW, I think (not reli= able)=20 that {je} means the predicates are logically separable and so terms can hav= e a=20 collective sense with one predicate and a distributive sense with the other= . I=20 think {gi'e} requires the same sense for both and should be contradictory f= or=20 any X. 4. Does it have to be some expression that actually mentions cats and dogs= ?=20 Those get mess in themselves, but assuming you have done that, it will do,= =20 whatever it is, since the object is neither either collectively or=20 distributively.. {su'o X cu gerku je mlatu} would be true, however. (The = claim=20 about distributively is open to challenge). 5. Your solution works fine, except you only need {lo sanci} at the end. 6. (still blind, so no memory of a good word for powerful) {lo jenmi cu=20 [powerful]} maybe adding "but no part of it is by itself" though that is=20 probably not true. Prolix, as usual. ----- Original Message ---- From: Felipe Gon=E7alves Assis To: lojban@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, May 14, 2011 9:08:00 PM Subject: Re: [lojban] Masses Thanks for your clarifications John, I must say, however, that I am only highly disturbed. Before I proceed with= any discussion, I must ask for help (move this to [lojban-beginners] if appropriate). I have been believing that a mass (whatever you call it) was just as much a logical object as anything else, of a somewhat vague nature, but uniquely associated to a specific set, and as such, to a specific cardinali= ty. This is clearly wrong. Where the CLL introduces lVi descriptors I read "A mass has the properties of each individual which composes it, and may ha= ve other properties of its own as well. This can lead to apparent contradictio= ns." which basically denies my suggestion that masses should not inherit the properties of its individuals. The CLL was my first and primary source for learning lojban, so I can only conclude that this interpretation of masses came to my mind because I felt the need to express such an idea. My big question now is how should I correct my lojban writings and thoughts to the actual definition and community usage of descriptors. For now, I wou= ld appreciate if someone answered the following more specific questions 1. Is {lo jenmi cu sonci} usually true? 2. Is {lo sonci cu jenmi} usually true? 3. For what kind of X can I guarantee {X cu broda naje broda} to be false? 4. What kind of X can refer to a group of three dogs and two cats as a single object for which {X cu gerku je mlatu} is false? 5. How can I unambiguously say "The army is composed of a thousand soldiers= ", as opposed to "a thousand divisions" or "a thousand limbs"? Perhaps {lo jenmi cu ki'omei lo'i sonci}? 6. How can I unambiguously say "The army is powerful", as opposed to "it ha= s a powerful soldier" or "it has a powerful division"? I'd also like to receive pointers about L-sets. Thanks in advance for any attention provided. I also hope this is enlightening to other lojbanists. mu'o mi'e .asiz. On 14 May 2011 20:33, John E Clifford wrote: > Yeah, that is a rub. Officially (insofar as xorlo is official -- which i= s > probably more so than just about anything else), {lo} terms are neutral= =20 between > the distributive and collective senses (the word "mass" generates a whole= =20 >nother > set of problems from Logjam history). Using it as both in a single sente= nce > seems wrong when you think about it, but perfectly natural in use: "The= =20 >students > wore green headbands and surrounded the building.". "The girls dressed li= ke=20 >Lady > Gaga but were a group of five." There is a temptation to take [lo] terms > without external quantifiers as representing collective use, since those = with > quantifiers are always distributive, but, convenient as that would be (to= =20 avoid > questions about who carried the piano, say), there is greater convenience= (it=20 >is > said) in the present system, which allows for the double use and also for= =20 cases > where we just don't know where we don't know (or it doesn't matter) how t= he > group pulled it off. > But that, of course, is separate from the issue about {-mei}. L-sets are= a > little hard to get used to thought of as sets, but one of the rules about= them > is that (abc)=3D((ab)c)=3D(a(bc))=3D(b(ac))=3D((abc)), so, there is no pa= rticular > problem in the same things constituting a pamei, a remei and a cimei. it'= s all > in how you (mentally or not) group them. And so, of course, is the matte= r of > what other predicates apply: taken one by one in the freest form the comb= ined > armies are soldiers, in another form, they are armies. And another axiom= is > (a)=3Da, so that. like it or not, your broda is also a pamei. Personally= , I=20 >would > as soon take the language of {lo} and {-mei} as basic and not try to expa= nd it > out in some string of quantifiers, other nameoids, {noi} or {poi} or what= ever. > Each of these definitions seems to lack some of the simplicity and clarit= y of > the original language and never seem to fit conveniently into other conte= xts. > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Felipe Gon=E7alves Assis > To: lojban@googlegroups.com > Sent: Sat, May 14, 2011 5:30:26 PM > Subject: [lojban] Masses > > coi rodo > > From the talk <[lojban] "lo no">: > 2011/5/14 Jorge Llamb=EDas : >> I agree with the gist of tijlan's post, but I'd like to add some=20 observations. >> >> On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 7:56 AM, tijlan wrote: >>> lo ci gerku =3D da poi gerku je cimei >>> lo no gerku =3D da poi gerku je nomei >> >> lo ci gerku =3D zo'e noi gerku gi'e cimei >> lo no gerku =3D zo'e noi gerku gi'e nomei >> > > These interpretations look wrong to me. The individuals are {gerku}, > while only the mass composed of them is a {cimei}. This distinction > is essential, so that, e.g., the referents of > {da poi jenmi je so'imei}, > {zo'e noi jenmi gi'e so'imei}, and > {lo jenmi je so'imei} > can all be unambiguously understood to be an army (or armies) of > many soldiers, instead of a lot of armies, regardless of semantic > nuances between these expressions. > > Were we to accept that a mass of broda can always be described as > broda in any of these ways, then we would have to accept that a > mass of two armies, each one composed of a thousand men is a > {jenmi gi'e solci gi'e remei gi'e ki'omei}. In particular, we must accept > {remei je ki'omei} to be no contradiction. > > More importantly: How would I clarify that my broda is just a broda, > and not any conceivable mass (of masses of masses... ) of broda? > Perhaps by saying something like {broda gi'e gunma noda poi broda}? > > In summary, systematically assigning to a mass the properties of its > individuals, while not logically problematic, is highly confusing, and > requires heavy work when a common disambiguation is called for. > > I would say that the meaning of {lo PA broda cu brode} is closer to eithe= r > {PA da broda .i da poi broda cu brode} (CLL), or > {PA lo broda cu brode} (xorlo only), or > {zo'e noi gunma PA da poi broda cu brode} (xorlo only). > > What do you think? > > mu'o > mi'e .asiz. > > -- > 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=3Den. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups= =20 >"lojban" group. > To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to=20 >lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at=20 >http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den. > > --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups= =20 "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to=20 lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at=20 http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den. --=20 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@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.