From lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRCu0_3wBBoEPMzUnQ@googlegroups.com Thu Jul 14 15:12:12 2011 Received: from mail-qw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.216.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QhU8f-00068a-L6; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 15:12:12 -0700 Received: by qwh5 with SMTP id 5sf728551qwh.16 for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 15:12:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to: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=lW6C1+pH+rJ5bxY+E9N3h17T+w6ghRicCEv7hAjPuPI=; b=vIA3akM50eKVP2riqUdXR+ih3ft2467VNElvyZYWQR1coJ+e/3E3X1DzTAHQCwuO6u GGD5h9+MRqRiS8HYJAUfNfx4kljxYEfJoHDclV0krKdYrdDtKummLxoGIuJkw6L3MziC kfvGTUdWO1aRTq4X4Fyi3q9Un/sHcwTCDHPjw= Received: by 10.229.62.193 with SMTP id y1mr376480qch.12.1310681518509; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 15:11:58 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.224.181.73 with SMTP id bx9ls3567qab.6.gmail; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 15:11:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.202.10 with SMTP id fc10mr3413831qab.15.1310681423321; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 15:10:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.202.10 with SMTP id fc10mr3413829qab.15.1310681423309; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 15:10:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vw0-f46.google.com (mail-vw0-f46.google.com [209.85.212.46]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z32si577491qcd.1.2011.07.14.15.10.23 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 14 Jul 2011 15:10:23 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.46 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.46; Received: by vws1 with SMTP id 1so759663vws.33 for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 15:10:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.179.161 with SMTP id dh1mr3132100vdc.177.1310681423050; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 15:10:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.111.198 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 15:10:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 19:10:23 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] girzu gi'i gunma gi'i se gunma From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.46 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.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 On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 8:30 AM, tijlan wrote: > =A0no'i la ciftoldi joi la .alis. ze'a simxu lo nu smaji catlu (newer ver= sion) > > Why "joi", given that "ce" would be in more accordance with the > dictionary definition of simxu1 (a set)? I don't use sets, since they don't really add much and they cause trouble in some cases. For example, consider this other sentence from Alice: .i lo re mei cu pilno sy lo nu kicne kei gi'e vregau lo bircidni sy gi'e simxu lo ka tavla ga'u lo sy stedu If you tried to do that with sets, you'd have to jump through some loops, since sets can't use stuff or rest their elbows on something. >I'm personally of the opinion > that the dictionary doesn't have to confine this x1 to one type or the > other; but if it's just that we don't have to be as much strict about > what makes for simxu1, why not "ju'e", which presumably is already > generic? I would use "jo'u" now, since I think "joi" and "jo'u" are basically synonymous, but "joi" has the problem that some people interpret it as introducing a new entity (a "mass") that counts separately from the entities it is composed of. I couldn't really say how "ju'e" differs from them either. > =A0ci mi'o > =A0=3D ci lo me mi joi do > =A0=3D ci da poi me mi joi do > > My question: Does this "da" refer to lo gunma or lo se gunma? In other > words, is each of the three referents of "ci da" a group or an > individual? As an aside, "ci da" does not have referents, since it's a quantifier binding a free variable. I understand your question, though. Does the domain over which "da" ranges contain a single member (one of those "mass" things) or maybe at least three of those "mass" things, or does it contain people (presumably at least three). I say no such things as "masses" are involved, mass-talk is just a way of saying that the reference to many is not to be taken distributively. mu'o mi'e xorxes --=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.