Re: gadri paradigm: 2 excellent proposals

[Nick Nicholas <opoudjis@optushome.com.au>]

I commend you guys for your premisses, and blast you for your confusion.

> So here is what xorxes and I agree on:
>
> set: lu'iro lu'ile lu'ila (=lo'i/le'i/la'i)
> quantified: PA(ro) PAle PAla
> substance: lu'oiro lu'oile lu'oila
> collective: lu'oro lu'ole lu'ola (=(piro)loi/lei/lai)
> 'unique': lu'airo lu'aile lu'aila

The ontology is certainly a sound basis for anything to be said on gadri

> Stuff still up in the air:
>
> * Is a gadri for Prototypical (or Representative Imaginary, or
> whatever) logically sound?
> If it isn't, then lo'e/le'e are short for lu'airo/lu'aile.
> If it is, then CLL compatibility might argue for lo'e/le'e as
> the Prototypical.

By 'logically sound', what do you mean? Because 'prototype' seems to be 
a psychological, rather than logical, construct.

> * Is there any way to make any of the above a bit shorter?

Here comes trouble...

> * Is there any scope to fiddle with default interpretations
> of bare gadri?

By the fundamentalist imperative, not much.

> I propose, as the solution that would allow the greatest
> economy in usage conditioned only by considerations of
> meaning, that bare lo/le/la should be interpreted as if
> preceded by lu'oiro.

And in a fundamentalist imperative where CLL compatibility and past 
usage outweigh perceived utility and shortness, this is of course 
unacceptable.

> That would then give the following table of shortest forms:
>
> set: lo'i le'i la'i
> quantified: PA PAle PAla
> substance: lo le la
> collective: loi lei lai
> 'unique': lu'airo (~lo'e) lu'airole (~ le'e) lu'aila

Doing the following:

* Regarding 'substance' as the basic meaning of {loi}
* Allowing that the piano carriers define 'substance' as well as 
'collective' --- they just define 'collective' better --- and the "if 
one of us then all of us" definition (CLL p. 123) fits substance and 
not collective
* Regarding the definition lo = su'o pa as inviolable
* Allowing the statistical article to go back to gismu
* Rejecting the DeLong/LeChevalier line of {lo prenu remei cu bevri}, 
because if {remei} is a mass we're back to square one (it could still 
be one person doing the carrying), and if {remei} is a collective... 
well, that might work, but it needs a lot of thinking

I come up with this rather messier paradigm --- which does not throw 
existing Lojban out:

set: lo'i le'i la'i
quant: (PA)lo (PA)le (PA)la
substance: loi loi loi
collective: lu'oi ro lu'oi le lu'oi la
coll., alt. lo romei be lo lo romei be le lo romei be la
(if {mei} becomes collective not substance, which is not impossible)
unique: lu'ai ro lo lu'ai ro le lu'ai ro la
prototype: lo'e le'e
mode: lo fadni belo'i lo fadni bele'i lo fadni be la'i

It makes infinite sense to me that the default quantifier between LAhE 
and LE be {ro}, as is clear by inspection; but whatever.

> The default inner PA for bare lo/le/la would be tu'o.

The default inner PA for substances shall indeed be tu'o, that's the 
whole point of substances, and I reject the perpetuation of error. 
Inasmuch as CLL perpetuates this confusion, this part of it I reject.

> An overt
> PA would change the interpretation from substance:
>
> quantified: loPA = su'oloPA lePA = rolePA
> substance: lo(tu'o) le(tu'o)
>
> An indeterminable amount of prior usage would be invalidated,

Too much: you're making all references to individuals change, and I 
content we still do mostly want to talk about individuals.

> but that is a small price to pay, because lo/le/la would at
> last be assigned to a role where they would properly have highest
> frequency.

A Lojban Mark II statement. I can't countenance so much of a change.

> No new gadri would be required. And just 2 new LAhE would be
> required.

This I like, and wish to stick with.

== == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == ==
Nick Nicholas, Breathing | le'o ko na rivbi fi'inai palci je tolvri 
danlu
opoudjis@opoudjis.net | -- Miguel Cervantes tr. Jorge 
LLambias