Received: from mail-qa0-f61.google.com ([209.85.216.61]:57295)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban-beginners+bncCKu5ssGzBRCqw6eCBRoEwVXARA@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1T9xDt-0003z1-Sh; Fri, 07 Sep 2012 04:59:51 -0700
Received: by qadz32 with SMTP id z32sf2322816qad.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 07 Sep 2012 04:59:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-pair-authenticated:message-id:date:from
         :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-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=BK42nrex7KiPVK16zOeMNTMetkrNgDQsxtamaunRqfs=;
        b=hm5jShQ6xdi8ktkqkpIgJiyaPnynB99zMq/gSqTczeblqzipdsh5xrNuVAutfHfCdM
         Yufdbm5dRkLgKQXa5LX3KJJ0t9RmP/oEnjfcW/DBUpdQUqH32dGlQMuLyeG4Y/CwNc/9
         IOvZjf9yXXcOjKaVMXFK4XQ+UwiyETGZRmplgCtgaQwPqlsnz6u5ZCBIZLWysgyT3J6p
         JKhXRJ9ijHxp8x6wTC1N8GRu7cbRxXCyIJfBePfWJWJeQGE2DJQRYlPAvhwijl1tsj2q
         vyLzjpnkhxMcYnzpDEr0zxHpd1R3ixRhjbdgTvT6PcFykrLN8gLfhTVK7IqN0lvEvV4R
         GLWg==
Received: by 10.50.203.38 with SMTP id kn6mr2745479igc.1.1347019178655;
        Fri, 07 Sep 2012 04:59:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.50.214.34 with SMTP id nx2ls812013igc.1.gmail; Fri, 07 Sep
 2012 04:59:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.42.69.8 with SMTP id z8mr2359745ici.30.1347019177572;
        Fri, 07 Sep 2012 04:59:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.42.69.8 with SMTP id z8mr2359744ici.30.1347019177553;
        Fri, 07 Sep 2012 04:59:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay00.pair.com (relay00.pair.com. [209.68.5.9])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id ba5si1941244igb.3.2012.09.07.04.59.37;
        Fri, 07 Sep 2012 04:59:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 209.68.5.9 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of m3o@plasmatix.com) client-ip=209.68.5.9;
Received: (qmail 21231 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2012 11:59:36 -0000
Received: from 87.160.139.154 (HELO ?192.168.1.33?) (87.160.139.154)
  by relay00.pair.com with SMTP; 7 Sep 2012 11:59:36 -0000
X-pair-Authenticated: 87.160.139.154
Message-ID: <5049E1A7.3070002@plasmatix.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 13:59:35 +0200
From: selpa'i <m3o@plasmatix.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120824 Thunderbird/15.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: Where should I use sets and where should I
 use masses?
References: <369b1b83-0407-4ccf-aa59-89a5ffbaf473@googlegroups.com> <CAOQ8VDUCkSVyFRG_4td_EAhiZ3XUO9bbr4-MNprN0oCwptsqRw@mail.gmail.com> <CAPAJj9K4NDjNQZnkiF2UXaAtHjsnswwsgpCm+Cm9Ata-pLN25w@mail.gmail.com> <02c05dfc-7cc4-4ec6-a331-d915e2e9cdbf@s5g2000vbj.googlegroups.com> <CAO7tK2eUJHA-35pXtbHnhusyG0ef1T6D_SrPf94RhALoYWUM3Q@mail.gmail.com> <07b7573a-45c9-44be-9d03-a74aa2b1127d@q20g2000vbx.googlegroups.com> <CAO7tK2d6W2jgPmx9BZ9EZpsT2hWijsE12tgoSN358HgujHgLaQ@mail.gmail.com> <6bbe2f0e-9e7e-47e5-bbe1-0896c881dae9@p5g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> <CAOQ8VDV3C=5U=adHisMO7eVPCO=ndPFk3M4Pv7kppD=AyddTCg@mail.gmail.com> <CAO7tK2dvHq_1+PZ1GMjqHqBUSkazagE_MEr9Pc+1jU-YPjCdOA@mail.gmail.com> <CAOQ8VDVTfjDpwdiKtVvO7sCku11UE5XyT4cJJYqZfZE+inJM1w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOQ8VDVTfjDpwdiKtVvO7sCku11UE5XyT4cJJYqZfZE+inJM1w@mail.gmail.com>
X-Original-Sender: m3o@plasmatix.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com:
 209.68.5.9 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of
 m3o@plasmatix.com) smtp.mail=m3o@plasmatix.com
Reply-To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com; contact lojban-beginners+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <lojban-beginners.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 300742228892
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban-beginners+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en_US>
Sender: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners/subscribe?hl=en_US>,
 <mailto:lojban-beginners+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners/subscribe?hl=en_US>,
 <mailto:googlegroups-manage+300742228892+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------010105060909000505020803"
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /
Content-Length: 10026

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------010105060909000505020803
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Am 07.09.2012 02:42, schrieb Jacob Errington:
>
>
> On 6 September 2012 19:57, Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com=20
> <mailto:jjllambias@gmail.com>>wrote:
>
>     On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Jacob Errington
>     <nictytan@gmail.com <mailto:nictytan@gmail.com>> wrote:
>     >
>     > latro'a and I have a strict(er) view of Lojban in that regard
>     and believe
>     > than simxu1 must be a set, and that the simxu action is fully
>     pairwise.
>
>     But in what sense does that definition make Lojban more strict? Are
>     you saying that a predicate with the more vague meaning is simply not
>     a possible predicate in your strict version of Lojban?
>
>
> Perhaps more "rigid" rather than "strict", but in general, it means=20
> less intuitive interpretation. To a beginner, {lo verba cu simlu lo ka=20
> kelci} is probably intuitively correct. Indeed, it is understandable,=20
> but it doesn't have that rigid correctness that I adhere to.=20
> Similarly, this overall rigidness involves dislike for {kakne lo nu=20
> broda} (should be {ka}) and {zmadu fi lo ka broda} (should be {ni}).=20
> Although I have little evidence that actually supports this, this=20
> interpretation probably makes things simpler to formally define in lojban=
.
>
> In my honest opinion, {lo verba cu simxu lo ka ce'u kelci kansa ce'u}=20
> is just nonsense, because it simply isn't distributive.

It's not distributive until you add an outer quantifier. lo verba is a=20
collection of one or more individual children, how they act on the=20
selbri is not specified.

> I strongly dislike that {lo} can produce non-individuals and therefore=20
> use loi and lo'i accordingly (please don't supply the gi'e example; a=20
> "better" solution to that problem in my opinion is either a jai-like=20
> LAhE-cast or, if we aren't allowed to make up any new cmavo, to just=20
> use {ije} (and if the problem occurs inside an abstraction, it isn't=20
> my fault that there isn't an true afterthought bridi connective in the=20
> form of {vauJA} or some such)).

A bit off-topic, but I do wonder when and if we'll ever get such an=20
afterthought connective for use within abstractions. Who *hasn't* wanted=20
that at least once? (As well as non-logical forethoughts, I want those too.=
)

> Each individual of the description distributes into the predicate, but=20
> it *is not* true that each of the children {simxu lo ka kelci kansa}.

Same as above, they don't distribute.

> In fact, if it's okay to just use definitely separate individuals like=20
> that, ignoring distribution completely, then {.i mi .e do simxu lo ka=20
> cenba} makes perfect sense, which again in my opinion, it most=20
> certainly should not, as {mi simxu lo ka cinba .ije do simxu lo ka=20
> cinba} is complete nonsense.

That is definitely nonsense. ".e" produces two different bridi, the=20
connected sumti are rather unrelated. This is quite a different case=20
from lo verba which is a single sumti, a single collection of individuals.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

--=20
fi'o co'e ko'a ki'e soi la'e vei jo'i pe'o su'i by
    lo nu lu tu'e ne zu'i zi'e noi toldi
    nu'i li rau ke me dei to be zi'o ce'u du zo'e bu'a

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@=
googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban=
-beginners?hl=3Den.


--------------010105060909000505020803
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix"><tt>Am 07.09.2012 02:42, schrieb Jacob
        Errington:</tt><tt><br>
      </tt></div>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CAOQ8VDVTfjDpwdiKtVvO7sCku11UE5XyT4cJJYqZfZE+inJM1w@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite"><tt><br>
      </tt><tt><br>
      </tt>
      <div class="gmail_quote"><tt>On 6 September 2012 19:57, Jorge
          Llamb&iacute;as </tt><tt><span dir="ltr">&lt;<a
              moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:jjllambias@gmail.com"
              target="_blank">jjllambias@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span></tt><tt>
          wrote:</tt><tt><br>
        </tt>
        <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
          .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
          <div class="im"><tt>On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Jacob
              Errington &lt;</tt><tt><a moz-do-not-send="true"
                href="mailto:nictytan@gmail.com">nictytan@gmail.com</a></tt><tt>&gt;
              wrote:</tt><tt><br>
            </tt><tt>
              &gt;</tt><tt><br>
            </tt><tt>
              &gt; latro'a and I have a strict(er) view of Lojban in
              that regard and believe</tt><tt><br>
            </tt><tt>
              &gt; than simxu1 must be a set, and that the simxu action
              is fully pairwise.</tt><tt><br>
            </tt>
            <tt><br>
            </tt>
          </div>
          <tt>But in what sense does that definition make Lojban more
            strict? Are</tt><tt><br>
          </tt><tt>
            you saying that a predicate with the more vague meaning is
            simply not</tt><tt><br>
          </tt><tt>
            a possible predicate in your strict version of Lojban?</tt><tt><br>
          </tt></blockquote>
        <div><tt><br>
          </tt></div>
        <div><tt>Perhaps more "rigid" rather than "strict", but in
            general, it means less intuitive interpretation. To a
            beginner, {lo verba cu simlu lo ka kelci} is probably
            intuitively correct. Indeed, it is understandable, but it
            doesn't have that rigid correctness that I adhere to.
            Similarly, this overall rigidness involves dislike for
            {kakne lo nu broda} (should be {ka}) and {zmadu fi lo ka
            broda} (should be {ni}). Although I have little evidence
            that actually supports this, this interpretation probably
            makes things simpler to formally define in lojban.</tt></div>
        <div><tt><br>
          </tt></div>
        <div><tt>In my honest opinion, {lo verba cu simxu lo ka ce'u
            kelci kansa ce'u} is just nonsense, because it simply isn't
            distributive. </tt></div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <tt><br>
    </tt><tt>It's not distributive until you add an outer quantifier. lo
      verba is a collection of one or more individual children, how they
      act on the selbri is not specified.</tt><tt><br>
    </tt><tt><br>
    </tt>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CAOQ8VDVTfjDpwdiKtVvO7sCku11UE5XyT4cJJYqZfZE+inJM1w@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <div class="gmail_quote">
        <div><tt>I strongly dislike that {lo} can produce
            non-individuals and therefore use loi and lo'i accordingly
            (please don't supply the gi'e example; a "better" solution
            to that problem in my opinion is either a jai-like LAhE-cast
            or, if we aren't allowed to make up any new cmavo, to just
            use {ije} (and if the problem occurs inside an abstraction,
            it isn't my fault that there isn't an true afterthought
            bridi connective in the form of {vauJA} or some such)). </tt></div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <tt><br>
    </tt><tt>A bit off-topic, but I do wonder when and if we'll ever get
      such an afterthought connective for use within abstractions. Who
      *hasn't* wanted that at least once? (As well as non-logical
      forethoughts, I want those too.)</tt><tt><br>
    </tt><tt><br>
    </tt>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CAOQ8VDVTfjDpwdiKtVvO7sCku11UE5XyT4cJJYqZfZE+inJM1w@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <div class="gmail_quote">
        <div><tt>Each individual of the description distributes into the
            predicate, but it *is not* true that each of the children
            {simxu lo ka kelci kansa}. </tt></div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <tt><br>
    </tt><tt>Same as above, they don't distribute.</tt><tt><br>
    </tt><tt><br>
    </tt>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CAOQ8VDVTfjDpwdiKtVvO7sCku11UE5XyT4cJJYqZfZE+inJM1w@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <div class="gmail_quote">
        <div><tt>In fact, if it's okay to just use definitely separate
            individuals like that, ignoring distribution completely,
            then {.i mi .e do simxu lo ka cenba} makes perfect sense,
            which again in my opinion, it most certainly should not, as
            {mi simxu lo ka cinba .ije do simxu lo ka cinba} is complete
            nonsense.</tt></div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <tt><br>
    </tt><tt>That is definitely nonsense. ".e" produces two different
      bridi, the connected sumti are rather unrelated. This is quite a
      different case from lo verba which is a single sumti, a single
      collection of individuals.</tt><tt><br>
    </tt><tt><br>
    </tt><tt>mu'o mi'e la selpa'i<br>
    </tt>
    <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- 
fi'o co'e ko'a ki'e soi la'e vei jo'i pe'o su'i by 
   lo nu lu tu'e ne zu'i zi'e noi toldi 
   nu'i li rau ke me dei to be zi'o ce'u du zo'e bu'a</pre>
  </body>
</html>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.<br />
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.<br />

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.<br />



--------------010105060909000505020803--