From lojban+bncCAAQ35GZ8gQaBEG5pyc@googlegroups.com Sat Aug 13 02:50:39 2011 Received: from mail-gy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.160.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QsArR-0005s8-HR; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 02:50:35 -0700 Received: by gyc15 with SMTP id 15sf5794018gyc.16 for ; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 02:50:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:x-pgp-key :x-pgp-keyid:x-cunselcu'a-valsi:user-agent: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; bh=B9275393IKG2H5mZArRUw9h0mRRvMyVYhRxooDQmKJo=; b=XQXlXpIV2PU37+dFNxIjifcZ4oXv2EBDjMYvQnO7pHqJXaGTSScFAiaFy7ZPl3Orj+ UY8MpKVnQBBrO+wzpqnW/AWmPmzBAbuSDO7BrPndp+qFxU7+LigIWOa7AZSAr8CnEzLv 4JH/Xyj1PTjhc7Hm/diCZt425IPOQ3fe6blcE= Received: by 10.236.143.39 with SMTP id k27mr666832yhj.40.1313229023293; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 02:50:23 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.101.41.5 with SMTP id t5ls12049138anj.2.gmail; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 02:50:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.153.195 with SMTP id f43mr4699897yhk.9.1313229022218; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 02:50:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.150.109.2 with SMTP id h2msybc; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 01:29:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.165.39 with SMTP id d27mr4643218yhl.0.1313224177210; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 01:29:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.165.39 with SMTP id d27mr4643217yhl.0.1313224177200; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 01:29:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (mx.sdf.org [192.94.73.19]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id xg1si3830511icb.2.2011.08.13.01.29.35 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 13 Aug 2011 01:29:36 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of mbays@sdf.org designates 192.94.73.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=192.94.73.19; Received: from gonzales.homelinux.org (root@sverige.freeshell.org [192.94.73.4]) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p7D8TYG8013374 for ; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 08:29:35 GMT Received: from martin by gonzales.homelinux.org with local (Exim 4.75) (envelope-from ) id 1Qs9b4-0005nP-OT for lojban@googlegroups.com; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 10:29:34 +0200 Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 10:29:34 +0200 From: Martin Bays To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] xorlo and masses Message-ID: <20110813082934.GO10697@gonzales> References: <20110811101134.GF10697@gonzales> <1313159555.91794.YahooMailRC@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20110812152917.GK10697@gonzales> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="UOYwgDhKKQYesrzQ" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key: http://mbays.freeshell.org/pubkey.asc X-PGP-KeyId: B5FB2CD6 X-cunselcu'a-valsi: rutni User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Original-Sender: mbays@sdf.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of mbays@sdf.org designates 192.94.73.19 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=mbays@sdf.org 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: , --UOYwgDhKKQYesrzQ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable * Friday, 2011-08-12 at 23:04 -0600 - Jonathan Jones : > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Martin Bays wrote: >=20 > > * 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? >=20 > 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 referen= ts > > > 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. > > > > > > [...] --UOYwgDhKKQYesrzQ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk5GNe4ACgkQULC7OLX7LNZi3QCfTLXtod4L6+yqCusPmZZ5cSWH vnoAn3ekjenlJPs1pM1BJX4b3OZJzLPw =OYmI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --UOYwgDhKKQYesrzQ--