From lojban+bncCMHEmaCOBhCExpnyBBoEbgdRTQ@googlegroups.com Sat Aug 13 04:42:10 2011 Received: from mail-yx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.213.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QsCbO-0004u4-Vs; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 04:42:09 -0700 Received: by yxk8 with SMTP id 8sf5928091yxk.16 for ; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 04:42:00 -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=ILq6vUgndkb+ZYJa2IKuxfOvxsHK3nPViA/OPmzT1bE=; b=y5T3X36u5Ekbz4xd++hC0G9A8+asxHO1JhRQAM9aPdxTBm6VkAO2GxVcpf/QUM/T+G jd06YRFu3IWbzZr2ZCF5QFU3b+fGvKKPkh6y9/a5xGVy84TOUqeuhz5NVhGSSbAVQ/k7 iSncurT3uO52FQGcMNisfMaYudrE18g+iJr0k= Received: by 10.151.77.37 with SMTP id e37mr512914ybl.34.1313235716714; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 04:41:56 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.100.13.2 with SMTP id 2ls13870012anm.0.gmail; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 04:41:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.146.9 with SMTP id q9mr4875647yhj.2.1313235714896; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 04:41:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.146.9 with SMTP id q9mr4875646yhj.2.1313235714879; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 04:41:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yx0-f181.google.com (mail-yx0-f181.google.com [209.85.213.181]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z61si3036670yhn.6.2011.08.13.04.41.53 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 13 Aug 2011 04:41:53 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.213.181 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.181; Received: by yxi13 with SMTP id 13so2734463yxi.12 for ; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 04:41:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.143.67.16 with SMTP id u16mr800983wfk.345.1313235713532; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 04:41:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.126.21 with HTTP; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 04:41:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110813082934.GO10697@gonzales> References: <20110811101134.GF10697@gonzales> <1313159555.91794.YahooMailRC@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20110812152917.GK10697@gonzales> <20110813082934.GO10697@gonzales> Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 05:41:53 -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 209.85.213.181 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=000e0cd29f7e36256904aa618482 --000e0cd29f7e36256904aa618482 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 2:29 AM, Martin Bays wrote: > * Friday, 2011-08-12 at 23:04 -0600 - Jonathan Jones : > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Martin Bays wrote: > > > 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... Non specific means that {lo broda} is not specific as to whether the referents are being referred to collectively or distributively. As J. Cowan said, to specifically refer to them collectively, use {loi}, to specifically refer to them distributively, use {PA lo} (where PA is any cmavo or cmavo cluster of selma'o PA) or {lu'a lo}. {lo} is completely generic, and distributive or collective reference when using only {lo} must be determined via context. This is why in {lo tadni cu sruri le dinju gi'e krixa}, {lo tadni} are collectively {sruri le dinju}, but distributively {krixa}, because {lo tadni} does not specify whether those which {tadni} are distributive or collective. > 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? > How could it be controversial? Also, IIRC, if you are using an outer quantifier, you don't actually need lo. ({PA lo broda} = {PA broda}) -- 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. --000e0cd29f7e36256904aa618482 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 2:29 AM, Martin = Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
* 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:
> > So in all cases, the referents of {lo/loi broda} are entities whi= ch
> > individually broda?
>
> No, just loi. lo is completely non specific.

I'm not sure what "non specific" means, but...

Non specific means that {lo broda} is not specific as to whet= her the=20 referents are being referred to collectively or distributively. As J.=20 Cowan said, to specifically refer to them collectively, use {loi}, to=20 specifically refer to them distributively, use {PA lo} (where PA is any cma= vo or cmavo cluster of selma'o PA) or {lu'a lo}.

{lo} is com= pletely generic, and distributive or collective reference when using only {= lo} must be determined via context. This is why in {lo tadni cu sruri le di= nju gi'e krixa}, {lo tadni} are collectively {sruri le dinju}, but dist= ributively {krixa}, because {lo tadni} does not specify whether those which= {tadni} are distributive or collective.
=A0
all I= 9;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?
=

How could it be controversial?

Also, IIRC, if= you are using an outer quantifier, you don't actually need lo. ({PA lo= broda} =3D {PA broda})

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo piln= o be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Lu= ke, 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.
--000e0cd29f7e36256904aa618482--