From lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRDj-JnyBBoEnaDDew@googlegroups.com Sat Aug 13 06:30:29 2011 Received: from mail-yi0-f61.google.com ([209.85.218.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QsEI9-0002qa-P4; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 06:30:27 -0700 Received: by yie36 with SMTP id 36sf6031445yie.16 for ; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 06:30:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-yahoo-newman-property:x-yahoo-newman-id :x-ymail-osg:x-mailer:references:message-id:date:from:subject:to :in-reply-to:mime-version: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=VoYFpD2zBA7fUtiE5K9YxDBiwB52xFS3xad94Ot9F1Y=; b=1/KB4d+4j2GJ8AgPmEoKTXsx55kOX2OmKP/FsMUiOq5sbOZngyhIcGb95uVhUYYdIs LXgpySjnaid4p6cQn1Iaq601cyofmSXCU24OqcOPA/jUPpcGLxVg/aZYCFSmK1xYP6Jx mdyIC2H/4mZt1qgSEa5z/I2AO7yuvBdE9BywQ= Received: by 10.147.51.17 with SMTP id d17mr311009yak.15.1313242211538; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 06:30:11 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.101.208.20 with SMTP id k20ls14485997anq.4.gmail; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 06:30:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.182.67 with SMTP id n43mr5021680yhm.11.1313242210553; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 06:30:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.182.67 with SMTP id n43mr5021679yhm.11.1313242210541; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 06:30:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm9-vm1.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com (nm9-vm1.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com [66.94.237.251]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id z61si3080321yhn.6.2011.08.13.06.30.09; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 06:30:09 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.237.251 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.94.237.251; Received: from [66.94.237.200] by nm9.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 13 Aug 2011 13:30:09 -0000 Received: from [66.94.237.124] by tm11.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 13 Aug 2011 13:30:09 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1029.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 13 Aug 2011 13:30:09 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-5 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 264471.56981.bm@omp1029.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 83073 invoked by uid 60001); 13 Aug 2011 13:30:09 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: 3CMygv4VM1ni1BgRoJdvbsspYRgT2jYfVBYQysafKV388XT HECmyGgNYucjuu4pPwfgXytwkhA0dMxeapDyWb_ZPzAJyOucb9_KT.fI_4ab d02FKAO4Ovl6chYNXZN1pmzq1sjY.cfhODh6tY0tqiMVisuwoY42WJJLfEJm pUgK8hu9C1yvKD7kXUjtS.rQYllnjTTGyBXE7G80qq1LJuHmPPTH2Jl6gaLn _Ic4p35FJsOglwT2HSQir2YhNV8lvrVpBLaMxMklLOILd7TgtsUCUNhIRw_O q4JyEpvtCdTlZSB8aZUpjgLmvoTuXnkBrILsVXdKhX5Jq8JdJxLj5xYJZJsV xlo6RB9VjRBBg0v7sa2ZPqqLZq_Y9_vWvhPtv0mWR.fUmbl8L_3fz77DANVi zudxYojLQ3a2_0TMsInv5CGn60bUdtuIoGpVihMpYwTALGoI.svcs3Obzo4e ezSA- Received: from [99.92.108.41] by web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 06:30:05 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/574 YahooMailWebService/0.8.113.313619 References: <20110811101134.GF10697@gonzales> <1313159555.91794.YahooMailRC@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20110812152917.GK10697@gonzales> <20110813082934.GO10697@gonzales> Message-ID: <1313242205.82409.YahooMailRC@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 06:30:05 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: Re: [lojban] xorlo and masses To: lojban@googlegroups.com In-Reply-To: <20110813082934.GO10697@gonzales> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: kali9putra@yahoo.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.237.251 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=kali9putra@yahoo.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@yahoo.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 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, ----- 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.