From lojban+bncCMHEmaCOBhDvi5jyBBoE-OIwhw@googlegroups.com Fri Aug 12 22:05:01 2011 Received: from mail-gy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.160.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Qs6P3-0001nL-9X; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 22:05:00 -0700 Received: by gyc15 with SMTP id 15sf5559252gyc.16 for ; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 22:04:50 -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=g596e8etMOt9Qg4mGLlIL3Cw7b59bfeXrAipoH2saAM=; b=caugMHua2gvgLsfJMiga/rxWPgrSuxx46rRgsjvf9aZPRs3gB139PgYtJTYlugwU1/ c9WLCKzfIvRTcQR83A60xYHxovkHuOwgp9dFmTubLEfXU4KHx93YpWh3XBTGLR33YufP ItZz6xj+lHc7AF4syWVpj3KBm3e41rGAIQ2g4= Received: by 10.236.157.133 with SMTP id o5mr587215yhk.39.1313211887040; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 22:04:47 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.100.246.22 with SMTP id t22ls1371472anh.6.gmail; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 22:04:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.19.14 with SMTP id 14mr1993095ans.31.1313211885698; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 22:04:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.19.14 with SMTP id 14mr1993094ans.31.1313211885672; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 22:04:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iy0-f182.google.com (mail-iy0-f182.google.com [209.85.210.182]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z9si1199207ics.5.2011.08.12.22.04.45 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 12 Aug 2011 22:04:45 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.182 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.210.182; Received: by iye1 with SMTP id 1so3086783iye.41 for ; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 22:04:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.50.20 with SMTP id x20mr749791wfx.288.1313211885347; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 22:04:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.126.21 with HTTP; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 22:04:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110812152917.GK10697@gonzales> References: <20110811101134.GF10697@gonzales> <1313159555.91794.YahooMailRC@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20110812152917.GK10697@gonzales> Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 23:04:45 -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 209.85.210.182 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=00151748e826f0e53404aa5bf71f --00151748e826f0e53404aa5bf71f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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>: > > > First of all. get rid of the word "mass"; it has been used -- and > > misused -- for too many things in Logjam history to be useful now. > > Fine. I'll just use 'gunma', and hope that isn't controversial too. > > > 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. > 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? > > > ( 'lo'i broda' refers always to a set of broda and so interacts only > > in a set like way -- with not particular connection to what its > > members happen to be.) This theory harmonizes most of what CLL and its > > addenda say about 'lo' and masses and a few other terms; what is left > > out is best considered not to apply any more. > > This harmony remains tantalisingly out of earshot. > > Martin > > > ----- Original Message ----. > > From: Martin Bays > > To: lojban@googlegroups.com > > Sent: Thu, August 11, 2011 5:11:34 AM > > Subject: [lojban] xorlo and masses > > > > That is, I know, the kind of subject line to make those who lived > > through the gadri wars shudder. > > > > But my question is simple and hopefully simply resolved. > > > > >From the gadri BPFK section: > > > > """ > > An individual can be anything, including a group, a set, a > > substance, a number, etc. {lo broda} can refer to one or > > more individuals. {lo'i broda} can refer only to those > > individuals that are sets. {loi broda} can refer only to > > those individuals that are groups ('masses'). > > """ > > > > >From the Indirect Referers section > > > > """ > > lu'a (LAhE) > > Individual. (Member.) 1. It converts a sumti into > > another sumti. The converted sumti points to the > > referents of the unconverted sumti, removing any > > indication of collectivization if there was any. > > """ > > > > > > 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. > > > > Admittedly, these two interpretations are not literally inconsistent - > you > > *could* have first-class masses *and* mass-flagging, it would just be > > very confusing. Is this really what was intended? > > > > Things are confused even furtherly by the example given on the gadri > > page of: > > > > lo tadni cu sruri le dinju gi'e krixa > > Students are surrounding the building and yelling. > > > > , which seems (in the context of the use of this kind of example in the > > lingustics literature) to suggest that the referents of {lo tadni} are > > acting as a mass in the first bridi and distributively in the second. > > Which would need the distributivity flag to have third value of > > "ambiguous", or something like that... > > > > > > Personally, I think the first interpretation (first-class masses which > > gadri can return) fits best with the rest of lojban - although it leaves > > open the question of how to specify that you *don't* want masses as the > > referents when using gadri... {ro lo tadni} is no good, as it could be > > interpreted as quantifying over some (perhaps just 1) masses which are > > the referents of {lo tadni}. {lo tadni poi na gunma su'o tadni} is the > > best I can come up with. > > > > Hoping for clarification, > > > > Martin > > > > -- > > 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. --00151748e826f0e53404aa5bf71f Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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>:

> First of all. get rid of the word "mass"; it has been used -= - and
> misused -- for too many things in Logjam history to be useful now.

Fine. I'll just use 'gunma', and hope that isn't cont= roversial too.

> 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<= br> > sets). =A0The 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. =A0To be explicitl= y
> collective, one must say 'loi broda'; to be explicitly distrib= utive
> say either 'PA lo broda' or 'lu'a lo broda'. =A0Th= e referents of all
> these expressions are the same: some brodas or a whole consisting of > those some brodas. =A0They 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.
=A0
This appears to be in contradiction with the BPFK section definition of
loi:

loi [PA] broda =A0 - =A0 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?

> ( 'lo'i broda' refers always to a set of broda and so inte= racts only
> in a set like way -- with not particular connection to what its
> members happen to be.) This theory harmonizes most of what CLL and its=
> addenda say about 'lo' and masses and a few other terms; what = is left
> out is best considered not to apply any more.

This harmony remains tantalisingly out of earshot.

Martin

> ----- Original Message ----.
> From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
> To:
lojban@googlegroups.com=
> Sent: Thu, August 11, 2011 5:11:34 AM
> Subject: [lojban] xorlo and masses
>
> That is, I know, the kind of subject line to make those who lived
> through the gadri wars shudder.
>
> But my question is simple and hopefully simply resolved.
>
> >From the gadri BPFK section:
>
> """
> An individual can be anything, including a group, a set, a
> substance, a number, etc. {lo broda} can refer to one or
> more individuals. {lo'i broda} can refer only to those
> individuals that are sets. {loi broda} can refer only to
> those individuals that are groups ('masses').
> """
>
> >From the Indirect Referers section
>
> """
> lu'a (LAhE)
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Individual. (Member.) 1. It converts a sumti into
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 another sumti. The converted sumti points to the
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 referents of the unconverted sumti, removing any
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 indication of collectivization if there was any.
> """
>
>
> These seem to indicate conflicting semantics for handling of masses. >
> (I'll use 'mass' in the CLL sense, intended to be synonymo= us with
> 'gunma'/'group'/'collective'/'plurality= 9;)
>
> The first appears to indicate that masses are still first-class
> entities, such that e.g. in {lo tadni cu sruri le dinju}, the referent= s
> 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 'flagge= d' 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 i= t
> is understood to hold of the mass consisting of the referents, rather<= br> > than distributively of the referents themselves.
>
> Admittedly, these two interpretations are not literally inconsistent -= you
> *could* have first-class masses *and* mass-flagging, it would just be<= br> > very confusing. Is this really what was intended?
>
> Things are confused even furtherly by the example given on the gadri > page of:
>
> lo tadni cu sruri le dinju gi'e krixa
> Students are surrounding the building and yelling.
>
> , which seems (in the context of the use of this kind of example in th= e
> lingustics literature) to suggest that the referents of {lo tadni} are=
> acting as a mass in the first bridi and distributively in the second.<= br> > Which would need the distributivity flag to have third value of
> "ambiguous", or something like that...
>
>
> Personally, I think the first interpretation (first-class masses which=
> gadri can return) fits best with the rest of lojban - although it leav= es
> open the question of how to specify that you *don't* want masses a= s the
> referents when using gadri... {ro lo tadni} is no good, as it could be=
> interpreted as quantifying over some (perhaps just 1) masses which are=
> the referents of {lo tadni}. {lo tadni poi na gunma su'o tadni} is= the
> best I can come up with.
>
> Hoping for clarification,
>
> Martin
>
> --
> 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.
--00151748e826f0e53404aa5bf71f--