From lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRDK96vyBBoEWXphlw@googlegroups.com Tue Aug 16 16:23:03 2011 Received: from mail-vx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.220.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QtSyK-0007YM-9S; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:23:03 -0700 Received: by vxh2 with SMTP id 2sf683290vxh.16 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:22:53 -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=Lm1IIubYPKykx1saMvjZbqRrDKYPh3vPejtlho1bjwU=; b=C9UnZX5JSpDUal6NIBFyh8hf9IZVlukAM/Y8uJJtUS6D8X/MKM8j8MBreDE6HFlphk sH2Z22Prvn1HymHbbv2DUtoSSukJdQKq5f3TVhJm0YE/emDGwViI7ZJfbhJ8xlbnpkEg f5rWiRm7ajPUM73eg2AWN8Qh02A66wF+jQVeE= Received: by 10.220.115.142 with SMTP id i14mr134655vcq.31.1313536970947; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:22:50 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.52.177.133 with SMTP id cq5ls605458vdc.0.gmail; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:22:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.180.3 with SMTP id dk3mr346306vdc.22.1313536970346; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:22:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.180.3 with SMTP id dk3mr346305vdc.22.1313536970337; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:22:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vw0-f53.google.com (mail-vw0-f53.google.com [209.85.212.53]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id bv16si1309068vdc.1.2011.08.16.16.22.50 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:22:50 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.53 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.53; Received: by mail-vw0-f53.google.com with SMTP id 13so245216vws.26 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:22:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.156.13 with SMTP id wa13mr334366vdb.165.1313536970115; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:22:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.101.170 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:22:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110816125216.GB10697@gonzales> References: <20110811101134.GF10697@gonzales> <1313159555.91794.YahooMailRC@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20110812152917.GK10697@gonzales> <20110813082934.GO10697@gonzales> <20110813124739.GP10697@gonzales> <20110814165654.GA14318@gonzales> <20110816125216.GB10697@gonzales> Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 20:22:50 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] xorlo and masses 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 209.85.212.53 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 Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Martin Bays wrote: > > Or do you want to say that it *doesn't* follow that those neurons > collectively {besna}, because the semantics of besna are such that only > individual brains satisfy {besna}? And generally that plural predication > is reserved for a few special predicates like {sruri}? That might make > the ambiguities more manageable. Yes, that's what I think. Some predicates require collective predication, some require distributive predication, and some are happy with both. That's part of the meaning of each predicate. It may be more a matter of having an affinity for a certain type of predication rather than an absolute requirement. Perhaps in some context it may make sense to say that some neurons are a brain. >> then I don't see much of a problem in using "lo go'i", i.e. >> "lo besna", to refer to the same things that "lo so'i nirna" refers >> to. > > But what are the referents of {lo besna}? Brains, or neurons? The referent of "lo besna" is always brains, and in addition, whenever neurons are brains, brains are neurons, so in that case, the referents of "lo besna" are also neurons. > If you > leave it ambiguous, won't this cause confusion? e.g. how would you > translate "these brains are conscious" without being misunderstood as > claiming that each of their constituent neurons are? This particular example doesn't seem like it would ever cause confusion, but in general I suppose you would have to go with something like "ti noi ro ke'a besna cu sanji" if you need that kind of precision. The only way to make sure your predicate appplies distributively is through a quantifier. >> I think that whether there is a magic cmavo or not, there must >> definitely be an "x1 constitute x2" relation as an ordinary selbri. > > Which holds when x2 has referent a group, x1 has as referents the > constituents of that group, and the predication is read collectively on > the left? And never holds with a distributive reading on the left? Or > can, but only when x1 and x2 both have the same single referent? Well, if you force me to make a decision, I would say x1 has a very strong affinity for a distributive reading. I can't commit to saying it forbids a collective reading. > So how do you see collective predication and groups-as-individuals > interacting? I would say predicate-logic-Lojban (whenever quantifiers get involved) has a preference for groups-as-individuals, while ordinary conversation Lojban has a preference for collective predication. Lojban is weird because it doesn't have plural quantifiers, which are really needed for logically handling collective predication, and it doesn't have singular variables, other than "da", "de", "di". So it's a strange mix. >> > A group is a kind of individual, so a possible referent of a sumti-6. >> >> Certainly, for example a referent of "lo girzu". >> >> > A group has as data a set of individuals - its constituents. >> >> OK. > > If you agree that this is all the data in a group, then {girzu} is > maybe not a good word to use... how about {zilgri}, defined to kill the > x2 and x4 places of {girzu}? Why not "gunma"? I didn't mean to say "lo girzu" is the most general kind of group, just an example of an individual that also happens to be a group. I could have used "lo bende", or "lo lanzu". I think "lo gunma" should be the most general case. >> >Things "collectively broda" iff the group whose constituents are >> >those things brodas. >> >> I'm not sure this will always hold. Do we need it for something? > > Elegance? OK, I can't think of any serious objection. Even things like "lo ci prenu cu pa mei" can be read collectively (as in "lo ci prenu cu pa mei lo bende"). 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.