Re: Use and abuse of sets

[reciproc@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca]

> >OTOH, if you want to say that every member of a
> >group performs some action on every other member, using a set is
> >the most clear.
> 
> Yes, but does this situation ever come up? Or at least as
> often as to require a whole set of cmavo to describe it?

I agree wholeheartedly with la xorxes. The only actual example I have seen
of the set cmavo which is even vaguely useful is
le'i ratci barda
"The set of rats is large"
"There are many rats"
Which is much more simply and clearly expressed "so'i ratci" or something 
similar. However, there should be a gismu for mathematical set, since this
*is* a logical language after all -- we shouldn't be forced to use lujvo.

> >Officially, only "le'i" is allowed, but I think that using
> >"lei" opens up interesting and useful distinctions such as this one.
> 
> I don't think that the gismu list suggesting a set
> for a given place means that *only* sets are allowed
> officially. I usually use masses where the gismu list
> suggests sets. {mi'o} is {mi joi do}, so if only sets were
> allowed with {simxu} you couldn't say something like
> {mi'o daxysi'u}, you'd have to say {mi ce do daxysi'u}.

An interesting thought: Since in Lojban, masses are
considered units, wouldn't the appropriate term for
a mass be {sezda'i}? Although admittedly this leads
to ambiguity as to whether members of the mass are
hitting themselves.

Bah, I've probably just gone too long without conlanging :)...

co'omi'e xarmuj.