From lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRCGvYbxBBoEkmrywA@googlegroups.com Sat Jul 16 07:22:11 2011 Received: from mail-yx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.213.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Qi5kv-00067p-AA; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 07:22:11 -0700 Received: by yxj20 with SMTP id 20sf2249794yxj.16 for ; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 07:22:03 -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; bh=dh8Od2AHTRPSpqoI1WeZ1vpoggWOu50lOxgy3KkK4F0=; b=q7xT/WWiPRdSsSFYdAOpHOZpVZfFxA0PJll3edX5YjxKcIc9UPldtdHJRdXDHvNWNi 7VCXIoiLEFDktihtSetten+PuCr/5wvX0I35fw5UTWrxFXSXVDKexqsEl1kiZJ40I5hU uWA8fhoG7Of27bUcoaU6WaPYSSJZM0kHbGCRo= Received: by 10.150.210.14 with SMTP id i14mr142155ybg.81.1310826118405; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 07:21:58 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.231.185.5 with SMTP id cm5ls935872ibb.3.gmail; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 07:21:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.134.65 with SMTP id k1mr1587399ict.77.1310826117651; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 07:21:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.134.65 with SMTP id k1mr1587398ict.77.1310826117641; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 07:21:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vx0-f181.google.com ([209.85.220.181]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c14si1243214icn.7.2011.07.16.07.21.57 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 16 Jul 2011 07:21:57 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.181 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.181; Received: by vxh17 with SMTP id 17so1036840vxh.26 for ; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 07:21:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.20.180 with SMTP id o20mr4082350vde.311.1310826117119; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 07:21:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.111.198 with HTTP; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 07:21:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 11:21:57 -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 209.85.220.181 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 On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 7:57 AM, tijlan wrote: > > Do you think, in the ideal world, "ce, joi, jo'u, ju'e" except one > that's to be made generic (and their gadri equivalents) could be > discarded, i.e. having only one generic non-logical connective and one > generic gadri? ce - lo'i joi - loi jo'u - lo ju'e - ? "lo" can never substitute for "lo'i", and similarly "jo'u" can never substitute for "ce". "lo broda" and "lo'i broda" refer to completely different types of things that have practically no properties in common. The reason I don't use sets is not that I think "lo" can stand for "lo'i", but rather that I don't use "simxu", for example, with the official definition. I use it with a different definition, such that the things that simxu are the things thmeselves rather than the set of those things. So the discarding of lo'i/ce has to do with redefining the (relatively few) predicates that call for sets as their arguments, it doesn't have to do with "lo" being generic. loi/joi is a different story, first of all because there is no real agreement about what they are in the first place. Sometimes people talk as if they were similar to lo'i/ce in that they create new entities with members (called "masses" instead of "sets"). Sometimes people talk as if they refer to the members directly, but with the additional information that, when used as the argument of a predicate, they are not to be taken distributively. And there are also other interpretations, such as the connection with mass nouns in English, or with gooey stuff, and so on. "lo" covers the non-distributive sense of "loi" (i.e. "lo" allows both distributive and non-distributive). In that sense "lo" is more general than "loi", assuming all "loi" does is force non-distributivity. As for "ju'e", it was a late addition and nobody uses it, so we don't even need to discard it, in practice it was never dealt in the first place. So, to answer your question, yes I would keep just lo and one connective. > What is your prospect for the other JOI, such as "ce'o" and "fa'u"? > How do they relate to sets? Would it be preferable to express the same > thing by means other than connectives? I have used "fa'u", and sometimes I have missed a corresponding gadri for it. When I use "ce'o", I don't think of it as creating a reference to an ordered set, but rather as indicating that the order of connectands is relevant. But "ko'a ce'o ko'e" still refers to ko'a and ko'e, not to something that has them as members. 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.