From lojban+bncCMHEmaCOBhCgvqbyBBoEVqvENQ@googlegroups.com Mon Aug 15 15:35:26 2011 Received: from mail-yi0-f61.google.com ([209.85.218.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Qt5kh-00074q-0f; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 15:35:26 -0700 Received: by yie36 with SMTP id 36sf9687007yie.16 for ; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 15:35:16 -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=C2A2Me5zVVRhBCWqw8kPD80iG/XrYdgQe+t/SX3ZEZY=; b=mw9ebPjv2ciy8yXTmKrUXwOW6sEspEbnmRF7hakLufultkWDIvBgW3QbBIjiQEleiv 7yw5IFymQdrqj2HQq+m9/kR8SBEThVhdr9Eb0o3/dl+bZuHQJdAFxMY+GiQ0CyrUf3BW jVJGanulCvnKGIcTjNHMxioyfwRPnAMwVx2p0= Received: by 10.236.9.41 with SMTP id 29mr1613355yhs.22.1313447712411; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 15:35:12 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.231.202.210 with SMTP id ff18ls1799048ibb.4.gmail; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 15:35:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.130.136 with SMTP id v8mr5393734ics.26.1313447711629; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 15:35:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.130.136 with SMTP id v8mr5393733ics.26.1313447711602; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 15:35:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pz0-f46.google.com (mail-pz0-f46.google.com [209.85.210.46]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id kr11si2009577pbb.1.2011.08.15.15.35.10 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 15 Aug 2011 15:35:10 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.46 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.210.46; Received: by pzk32 with SMTP id 32so3995828pzk.19 for ; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 15:35:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.87.2 with SMTP id k2mr2082936wfb.174.1313447710382; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 15:35:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.13.8 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 15:35:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110813150339.GR10697@gonzales> References: <20110811101134.GF10697@gonzales> <1313159555.91794.YahooMailRC@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20110812152917.GK10697@gonzales> <20110813082934.GO10697@gonzales> <1313242205.82409.YahooMailRC@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20110813150339.GR10697@gonzales> Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 16:35:10 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] xorlo and masses From: Jonathan Jones To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: eyeonus@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.46 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=eyeonus@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: multipart/alternative; boundary=00504502cccb35589c04aa92e0b2 --00504502cccb35589c04aa92e0b2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Martin Bays wrote: > * Saturday, 2011-08-13 at 06:30 -0700 - John E Clifford < > kali9putra@yahoo.com>: > > > Wrong, but not controversial. How the parts of lo broda broda is not an > issue. > > Consider, lo sruri be le dinju. Its individual parts do not sruri le > dinju > > individually, only some more numerous whole within the bigger whole does > (or > > maybe only the whole whole). The collective/distributive distinction is > > manifest only in how 'lo etc. broda' is used, not in how its referent is > > constituted, > > So you mean that the strongest tautology is not {ro lo broda cu broda}, > but simply {lo broda cu broda}? > > So for example, {lo besna} is ambiguous between having brains as > referents and having (e.g.) nerves as referents? > > Worse, if you adopt the axiom that a whole satisfies a property if any > subwhole does, the referents could also include rhinoceroses. > No, it could not. While it is true that a brain is a mass of neurons, it is not true that a mass of neurons is a brain. The peripheral nervous system is a mass of neurons. While it is true that a rhinoceros has a brain, it is not true that a rhinoceros is a brain. The referent of {lo besna} must be one or more brains. Not components of brains, nor things which contain brains, but only brains themselves. There may be any number of brains, but each and every one must be an actual brain. In any {lo broda cu brode}, /every/ referent of {lo broda} must broda. It is, however, possible that not every lo broda is brode-ing individually, but rather that some collective amount of the lo brodas is together brode-ing. Regardless, no matter what, ALL referents to {lo broda} must broda. > So with this meaning of {lo}, how would you unambiguously translate > "These brains are conscious", without the possibility of being > misunderstood as claiming that their component nerves are, nor electric > razors? > > I can only see {ro lo ti besna poi ro ke'a besna cu sanji}. > {lo besna cu sanji} is the simplest way to put it. > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Martin Bays > > To: lojban@googlegroups.com > > Sent: Sat, August 13, 2011 3:29:34 AM > > Subject: Re: [lojban] xorlo and masses > > > > * Friday, 2011-08-12 at 23:04 -0600 - Jonathan Jones >: > > > > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Martin Bays wrote: > > > > > > > * Friday, 2011-08-12 at 07:32 -0700 - John E Clifford < > > > > kali9putra@yahoo.com>: > > > > > > > > > Now, then, a brief summary of xorlo: 'lo broda' refers to some > broda > > > > > (contextually specified) or, equivalently, to a whole composed of > > > > > those some broda (a Lesniewskian set -- very different from the > usual > > > > > sets). The expression gives no indication whether these broda are > > > > > acting individually or collectively with respect to their > > > > > predicate(s), hence the propriety of conjoining an apparently > > > > > collective use with an apparently distributive one. To be > explicitly > > > > > collective, one must say 'loi broda'; to be explicitly distributive > > > > > say either 'PA lo broda' or 'lu'a lo broda'. The referents of all > > > > > these expressions are the same: some brodas or a whole consisting > of > > > > > those some brodas. They differ only in how these broda (or this > > > > > whole) relates to its predicate(s). > > > > > > > > So in all cases, the referents of {lo/loi broda} are entities which > > > > individually broda? > > > > > > No, just loi. lo is completely non specific. > > > > I'm not sure what "non specific" means, but... all I'm claiming is that > > {ro lo broda cu broda} is a tautology, where {ro lo broda} quantifies > > distributively over the referents of {lo broda}. Is this controversial? > > > > > > This appears to be in contradiction with the BPFK section definition > of > > > > loi: > > > > > > > > loi [PA] broda - lo gunma be lo [PA] broda > > > > > > > > (under the interpretation I understand you as giving, the individual > > > > referents of the left hand side would generally not gunma, while > those > > > > of the right hand side must) > > > > > > > > Or am I misinterpreting something? > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----. > > > > > From: Martin Bays > > > > > To: lojban@googlegroups.com > > > > > Sent: Thu, August 11, 2011 5:11:34 AM > > > > > Subject: [lojban] xorlo and masses > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > These seem to indicate conflicting semantics for handling of > masses. > > > > > > > > > > (I'll use 'mass' in the CLL sense, intended to be synonymous with > > > > > 'gunma'/'group'/'collective'/'plurality') > > > > > > > > > > The first appears to indicate that masses are still first-class > > > > > entities, such that e.g. in {lo tadni cu sruri le dinju}, the > referents > > > > > of {lo tadni} are masses of students, not individual students. In > > > > > particular, it is reasonable for that {lo tadni} to have just one > > > > > referent. > > > > > > > > > > The second appears to indicate that sumti can sometimes be > 'flagged' as > > > > > being interpreted collectively - the referents are the same whether > it > > > > > is so flagged or not, but if it is so flagged then a bridi > involving it > > > > > is understood to hold of the mass consisting of the referents, > rather > > > > > than distributively of the referents themselves. > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > -- > > 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. > -- mu'o mi'e .aionys. .i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o (Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D ) -- 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. --00504502cccb35589c04aa92e0b2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Martin = Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
* Saturday, 2011-08-13 at 06:30 -0700 - John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>:

> Wrong, but not controversial. =A0How the parts of lo broda broda is no= t an issue.
> Consider, lo sruri be le dinju. =A0Its individual parts do not sruri l= e dinju
> individually, only some more numerous whole within the bigger whole do= es (or
> maybe only the whole whole). =A0The collective/distributive distinctio= n is
> manifest only in how 'lo etc. broda' is used, not in how its r= eferent is
> constituted,

So you mean that the strongest tautology is not {ro lo broda cu broda= },
but simply {lo broda cu broda}?

So for example, {lo besna} is ambiguous between having brains as
referents and having (e.g.) nerves as referents?

Worse, if you adopt the axiom that a whole satisfies a property if any
subwhole does, the referents could also include rhinoceroses.

No, it could not. While it is true that a brain is a mass of ne= urons, it is not true that a mass of neurons is a brain. The peripheral ner= vous system is a mass of neurons.

While it is true that a rhinoceros has a brain, it is not true that a r= hinoceros is a brain.

The referent of {lo besna} must be one or more= brains. Not components of brains, nor things which contain brains, but onl= y brains themselves. There may be any number of brains, but each and every = one must be an actual brain.

In any {lo broda cu brode}, /every/ referent of {lo broda} must broda. = It is, however, possible that not every lo broda is brode-ing individually,= but rather that some collective amount of the lo brodas is together brode-= ing. Regardless, no matter what, ALL referents to {lo broda} must broda. =A0
So with this meaning of {lo}, how would you unambiguously translate
"These brains are conscious", without the possibility of being misunderstood as claiming that their component nerves are, nor electric
razors?

I can only see {ro lo ti besna poi ro ke'a besna cu sanji}.
=A0
{lo besna cu sanji} is the simplest way to put it.

=
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
> To: lojban@googlegroups.com=
> Sent: Sat, August 13, 2011 3:29:34 AM
> Subject: Re: [lojban] xorlo and masses
>
> * Friday, 2011-08-12 at 23:04 -0600 - Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com>:
>
> > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> >
> > > * Friday, 2011-08-12 at 07:32 -0700 - John E Clifford < > > > kali9putra@yahoo.com= >:
> > >
> > > > Now, then, a brief summary of xorlo: 'lo broda'= refers to some broda
> > > > (contextually specified) or, equivalently, to a whole c= omposed of
> > > > those some broda (a Lesniewskian set -- very different = from the usual
> > > > sets). =A0The expression gives no indication whether th= ese broda are
> > > > acting individually or collectively with respect to the= ir
> > > > predicate(s), hence the propriety of conjoining an appa= rently
> > > > collective use with an apparently distributive one. =A0= To be explicitly
> > > > collective, one must say 'loi broda'; to be exp= licitly distributive
> > > > say either 'PA lo broda' or 'lu'a lo br= oda'. =A0The referents of all
> > > > these expressions are the same: some brodas or a whole = consisting of
> > > > those some brodas. =A0They differ only in how these bro= da (or this
> > > > whole) relates to its predicate(s).
> > >
> > > So in all cases, the referents of {lo/loi broda} are entitie= s which
> > > individually broda?
> >
> > No, just loi. lo is completely non specific.
>
> I'm not sure what "non specific" means, but... all I'= ;m claiming is that
> {ro lo broda cu broda} is a tautology, where {ro lo broda} quantifies<= br> > distributively over the referents of {lo broda}. Is this controversial= ?
>
> > > This appears to be in contradiction with the BPFK section de= finition of
> > > loi:
> > >
> > > loi [PA] broda =A0 - =A0 lo gunma be lo [PA] broda
> > >
> > > (under the interpretation I understand you as giving, the in= dividual
> > > referents of the left hand side would generally not gunma, w= hile those
> > > of the right hand side must)
> > >
> > > Or am I misinterpreting something?
> > >
> > > > ----- Original Message ----.
> > > > From: Martin Bays <= mbays@sdf.org>
> > > > To: lojban@g= ooglegroups.com
> > > > Sent: Thu, August 11, 2011 5:11:34 AM
> > > > Subject: [lojban] xorlo and masses
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > These seem to indicate conflicting semantics for handli= ng of masses.
> > > >
> > > > (I'll use 'mass' in the CLL sense, intended= to be synonymous with
> > > > 'gunma'/'group'/'collective'/&#= 39;plurality')
> > > >
> > > > The first appears to indicate that masses are still fir= st-class
> > > > entities, such that e.g. in {lo tadni cu sruri le dinju= }, the referents
> > > > of {lo tadni} are masses of students, not individual st= udents. In
> > > > particular, it is reasonable for that {lo tadni} to hav= e just one
> > > > referent.
> > > >
> > > > The second appears to indicate that sumti can sometimes= be 'flagged' as
> > > > being interpreted collectively - the referents are the = same whether it
> > > > is so flagged or not, but if it is so flagged then a br= idi involving it
> > > > is understood to hold of the mass consisting of the ref= erents, rather
> > > > than distributively of the referents themselves.
> > > >
> > > > [...]
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gro= ups "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.



--
mu'o mi= 'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.l= uk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. = :D )

--
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.
--00504502cccb35589c04aa92e0b2--