From lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRC6orzuBBoE-tMOwA@googlegroups.com Sat May 14 16:33:28 2011 Received: from mail-yi0-f61.google.com ([209.85.218.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QLOKr-00035S-9s; Sat, 14 May 2011 16:33:28 -0700 Received: by yie19 with SMTP id 19sf4252186yie.16 for ; Sat, 14 May 2011 16:33:19 -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=iU85zWo+4Eo6ccvVRfVqw4PYMXVmsWQlLXIE1nO+bz4=; b=yChk/GJWVwBYcO6nB6KurOc/Hdx/JVocqKslOcVN8uMYkkqwBNYtXrLOuf8M+G+FvG vXml2mcSpb1mBLmQ8Lz+F4CJjxUTMUMrBT/p9UkeZZVAkMvNUfHarEceogNtq+1NrwcT 4m6nz15RUngDsWocw1+uMXgj0QC+hj0lpIwVo= 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=UCXncbbqncfDFPKTLYqjHe6LBA41haqYU8/fdr3WgeGZBLne7yufoGvncVC0PG1nvA Sb9SeoG8p0IKbvI9NY2ShrWLk4iUlaliACHW9uFTCDxO77yDnN33SotXSDEejV0/KeNs dcnaUp0j+B75qk7zJfb8XBC9MBhPx4pLmhQYc= Received: by 10.236.72.232 with SMTP id t68mr284555yhd.57.1305415994591; Sat, 14 May 2011 16:33:14 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.100.126.20 with SMTP id y20ls29823anc.2.gmail; Sat, 14 May 2011 16:33:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.78.20 with SMTP id a20mr1145267anb.12.1305415993885; Sat, 14 May 2011 16:33:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.78.20 with SMTP id a20mr1145266anb.12.1305415993867; Sat, 14 May 2011 16:33:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm2.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com (nm2.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com [66.94.237.203]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id i6si1148678anm.6.2011.05.14.16.33.12; Sat, 14 May 2011 16:33:12 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.237.203 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.94.237.203; Received: from [66.94.237.199] by nm2.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 May 2011 23:33:12 -0000 Received: from [66.94.237.119] by tm10.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 May 2011 23:33:12 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1024.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 May 2011 23:33:12 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 508846.86261.bm@omp1024.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 42381 invoked by uid 60001); 14 May 2011 23:33:12 -0000 Message-ID: <340069.36890.qm@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: qiBb6ckVM1lTg6DGztyE1VLuI8ygsdveJd2vzd4FZfkSu1W f2HUhAfEECuZydomZiOl_e9SouevFNoN51nxMO2YGh0cGyigjwI.eXfV5bJ8 l_LsIBO4dG94OJMZavB.9Q0oyXQekB.xQ9FuzHZWDgGx0tb10mwzEq7DdgIP m3f9mda6k4e.3X482LqpOROuzbb9k9yvkY97L1y2jhAqcELKY1WVl3HASbGc hCB9_EsQrGUajhcUHVspXKaZNru3MySyp7tLaYZin8SIcsguTNothzuLlbIW WgkHc46fLrsK57P0qv9W4nBJo4.tzQBVpSniPNhVpGxM2B4iK_93r7DOuIvT 2coyJVX7THouKFompBfJ6N6h9U.LrQxUjW9fxedirZfLkdEEIGAgRQnN8DU8 .bE785I83xwzwYu6gUU7Antg6qrSoAJHdZxfLMlv2pZar0JKlijMggClbYAm TzRweYotCagyexuZw4eYX0keno6nPMaeLXWjJD6BKUw-- Received: from [99.92.108.41] by web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 14 May 2011 16:33:12 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/567 YahooMailWebService/0.8.111.303096 References: Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 16:33:12 -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 66.94.237.203 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 Yeah, that is a rub. Officially (insofar as xorlo is official -- which is= =20 probably more so than just about anything else), {lo} terms are neutral bet= ween=20 the distributive and collective senses (the word "mass" generates a whole n= other=20 set of problems from Logjam history). Using it as both in a single sentenc= e=20 seems wrong when you think about it, but perfectly natural in use: "The stu= dents=20 wore green headbands and surrounded the building.". "The girls dressed like= Lady=20 Gaga but were a group of five." There is a temptation to take [lo] terms= =20 without external quantifiers as representing collective use, since those wi= th=20 quantifiers are always distributive, but, convenient as that would be (to a= void=20 questions about who carried the piano, say), there is greater convenience (= it is=20 said) in the present system, which allows for the double use and also for c= ases=20 where we just don't know where we don't know (or it doesn't matter) how the= =20 group pulled it off. But that, of course, is separate from the issue about {-mei}. L-sets are a= =20 little hard to get used to thought of as sets, but one of the rules about t= hem=20 is that (abc)=3D((ab)c)=3D(a(bc))=3D(b(ac))=3D((abc)), so, there is no part= icular=20 problem in the same things constituting a pamei, a remei and a cimei. it's = all=20 in how you (mentally or not) group them. And so, of course, is the matter = of=20 what other predicates apply: taken one by one in the freest form the combin= ed=20 armies are soldiers, in another form, they are armies. And another axiom i= s=20 (a)=3Da, so that. like it or not, your broda is also a pamei. Personally, = I would=20 as soon take the language of {lo} and {-mei} as basic and not try to expand= it=20 out in some string of quantifiers, other nameoids, {noi} or {poi} or whatev= er. =20 Each of these definitions seems to lack some of the simplicity and clarity = of=20 the original language and never seem to fit conveniently into other context= s. ----- 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 observat= ions. > > 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 either {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. --=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.