From lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRCW4YbxBBoEfj7V4w@googlegroups.com Sat Jul 16 08:39:16 2011 Received: from mail-yx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.213.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Qi6xV-0000qo-4E; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 08:39:15 -0700 Received: by yxj20 with SMTP id 20sf2294596yxj.16 for ; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 08:39:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-yahoo-newman-property:x-yahoo-newman-id :x-ymail-osg:x-mailer:references:message-id: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=WGvvaSB39L+WL5Y5fKIoJeVi9OTAE9+qVeur9Pz8WFw=; b=g2bQtxIiLjiYmqo6VdO+saYqO3wMWBnSAkgmZNdpzlneQGTmaHL8MZSbuIB7UJ8gF5 ZtkPzL7qXeJch+03Ua3tc5rXrLMG8WWBMqZud/3zijEo3wKmAVcqrq+DSErpdy9MI57F WQc4ZM+AGPzHERfqLKLj1e8/NB8B2hWz2K+zE= Received: by 10.150.150.21 with SMTP id x21mr651449ybd.8.1310830742392; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 08:39:02 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.150.213.2 with SMTP id l2ls785835ybg.3.gmail; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 08:39:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.176.163 with SMTP id b23mr2219881yhm.192.1310830740910; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 08:39:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.176.163 with SMTP id b23mr2219880yhm.192.1310830740899; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 08:39:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm12.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com (nm12.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com [66.94.237.213]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id w37si521312ybh.0.2011.07.16.08.38.59; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 08:38:59 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.237.213 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.94.237.213; Received: from [66.94.237.200] by nm12.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 16 Jul 2011 15:38:59 -0000 Received: from [66.94.237.111] by tm11.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 16 Jul 2011 15:38:59 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1016.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 16 Jul 2011 15:38:59 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 575114.61626.bm@omp1016.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 9460 invoked by uid 60001); 16 Jul 2011 15:38:59 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: .yxUlJ8VM1kRmxuZmNMfg1gLkE8mN1k6j49nd3jAhga6dza wxiH_8bPNg05ei9Kg3kc0KxXEjZErj0DHVBQOBOu7RHRWwJul0WTowSaY90b yOXlAgwIkG11D5AnWOAOEP0E_PufRtfKCBf3Se9ixwtVQE4VUMtUUIdzcTnX fE7r2oToNZOvX8.MaD7FdCDQpPlhe0G_nGjr8xHawhlv7srBSk5Rs5xpWx1q qLWvPRd7gdlz4m.FhpYKOk.j21LVHOddXTz_zbGjUYPIqgjYSiDF_XlR5.Q2 iWXOASnItOhijQGMYbBzOH2fQPtjEEkOa8T9AurjKH8WDbhmMk5X79didEA7 DFUEjFnYwqaJbI4Q5zNQT7Hnz3M_DRLloBmoOIWEH0Ljj2LiTUWBoFsBNxeM SKUXNftZ_mmgydmyKvfMXBmliFbHBlTSUcnEv.GAGlyumyofsfwBFgi7qCkU EYdO0npzi3.T6kJM8q4ib7aDNjkGu1P1lKNOQt1rWiJtlw7R_wmOafSsor69 zp1s43Qpi_FjSKS2KdsDWPFce4.AbOoOLIg-- Received: from [99.92.108.41] by web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 08:38:59 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/572 YahooMailWebService/0.8.112.307740 References: Message-ID: <1310830739.1741.YahooMailRC@web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 08:38:59 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: Re: [lojban] girzu gi'i gunma gi'i se gunma 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 66.94.237.213 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 Another terminological morass. "Set" has almost always in Logjam meant=20 Cantorian sets, the familiar ones from set theory. It is possible to xorlo= with=20 these, but the complications are many. First of all, sets in this sense ma= y=20 have no members, whereas 'lo broda' requires at least one broda to refer to= . =20 Secondly, sets regularly have as members all the things of that sort that t= here=20 are (in the current domain of discourse) whereas 'lo broda' can refer to as= few=20 as one of these or all or anywhere in between. Finally, the best way to de= al=20 with xorlo in terms of regular sets ends up having 'lo' working just like x= orlo=20 after all is said and done. So, sets are just not generally of any practic= al=20 use in Logjam; they do nothing that can't be handled better by xorlo. I wo= uld=20 be tempted to get rid of set talk altogether, as it muddles things up. "Mass" has been used for at least half-a-dozen (probably more than a dozen = --=20 it's hard to say since many were so amorphous) different notions and used t= o=20 solve a variety of problems. With xorlo most of these problems can be deal= t=20 with directly and matter-of-factly (some are still too incomprehensible to = know=20 what to do, though some useful stabs have been made). In this case, I woul= d=20 definitely do away with the word (and its Lojban equivalent), and thus save= a=20 lot of discussion space. The descriptor involved is useful, though, roundi= ng=20 out the set of distributive--neutral--collective, As for the conjunctions,= that=20 is a tricky question: if you join two descriptions with the "mass" connecti= ve,=20 are you thereby forcing the collective interpretation on both? Sticking wi= th=20 the neutral seems best, unless you are sure what you want to do. I confess to adding somewhat to this confusion, becase I often have a block= =20 against talking directly about multipicities. So, as in English, I talk ab= out=20 bunches, or groups or crowds, etc. On the one side, this is just a figure = of=20 speech to be ignored. On the other, it can be taken as interposing another= =20 entity between the things and our reference to them. That this entity is a= =20 Lesniewskian set and that the logic of such sets is exactly that of things= =20 directly (except for the intervening set-like notation) doesn't prevent som= e=20 people from thinking that that these intervening entities are sets and thus= =20 Cantorian and so reintroducing all the problems (another reason never to us= e the=20 word set outside mathematics), =20 ----- Original Message ---- From: tijlan To: lojban@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, July 16, 2011 5:57:21 AM Subject: Re: [lojban] girzu gi'i gunma gi'i se gunma 2011/7/15 Jorge Llamb=EDas : > On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 5:45 AM, tijlan wrote: >> >> Yes, I agree. And that loosening is what I assumed might have been the >> case with your not having chosen "ce" in your revised translation. But >> what about the older version, which presumably was more guided by the >> pre-xorlo sumti-type-splitting grammar? Was that too your choice? > > I abandoned sets years before xorlo, yes. I don't think sets do things > "mutually". just as they don't use things, and they don't rest their > elbows. So for me "simxu" means "x1 do x2 to one another", and not "x1 > has members that do x2 to one another". I don't think the two meanings > are really very compatible, although in general it is obvious which > one someone is using. I agree that sets don't do things mutually. But members can, right? According to the current definition, what do x2 are members of x1, not x1 itself. So, the definition itself seems to me compatible with your (and my) understanding of sets. It's a winding one, however: ko'a ce ko'e simxu lo nu broda =3D ge ko'a ko'e soi vo'a vo'e broda gi ko'a .e ko'e cmima da poi me ko'a ce ko'e (ko'a and ko'e mutually do broda, and they are members of the set "ko'a ce ko'e".) We don't need to state that each simxu1 entity belongs to the same set. That's somewhat like saying "pa lu'a lo'i gerku cu cadzu" (one member of the set "dog" walks) instead of "lo gerku cu cadzu" (a dog walks). "ce" or "lo'i", or the notion thereof, shouldn't be a mandatory part of simxu1, in my opinion. So, yes, "x1 do x2 to one another", stripped of the notion of set, sounds good to me. >> Should at all "joi" and "jo'u" be distinguished according to the mixed >> / unmixed dichotomy prescribed by the dictionary, one example that >> would illustrate the difference for me is this pair: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fried_egg >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omelette >> >> Fried eggs are "whites jo'u yolks", while omelettes are "whites joi >> yolks", according to their relative easiness and difficulty of >> separating the two cooked components. > > If you are thinking of "ko'a jo'u ko'e" or "ko'a joi ko'e" counting as > one thing, rather than as two things (assuming ko'a is one thing and > ko'e is another one thing), then I don't agree. If you are thinking of > a possible distinction between "lo broda jo'u brode" and "lo broda joi > brode", then maybe. > > When you say "whites and yolks", I'm not sure if you are thinking > "ko'a jo'u/joi ko'e" or "lo broda jo'u/joi brode". > >> I opine: Just like we need a generic gadri, we need a generic >> non-logical connective. "ju'e", the vague connective, is an immediate >> candidate. But, from our experience with xorlo, we could as well think >> of expanding the role of "joi" that's one-syllable shorter than >> "ju'e". ("ce" might as well maintain its original role due to its >> logical & mathematical significances.) > > For me, the gadri equivalent of "lo" is "jo'u". It would be nice that > it were "joi", if we could extract from it its harmful association > with the word "mass", but that's a very hard battle. > >> I had "loi" in mind. If "da poi me mi joi do" meant "that which is a >> mass thing composed of mi and do", could that be represented as "loi >> me mi joi do"? > > I don't have a use for mass things, at least not ones created by "joi" > and "loi" rather than by proper new entity creators like "lo gunma > be". For me "loi" and "joi" only say that the many referents of the > resulting sumti (not the *one* referent of the resulting sumti) are > not to be taken distributively but they are to be taken together. > > But different people have different ideas about what "loi" and "joi" > do. Some people think they refer to things called masses, such that > you can count each mass separately and independently of its members. 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? 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? mu'o mi'e tijlan --=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.