Re: RE: Sets etc.

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la and cusku di'e

>I am wondering whether it is possible to find additive:collective contrasts
>for a given predicate. That is, are additive:collective two aspects of
>the same thing, which contrasts with distributive? Or are they different?

Exactly. I guess what I have been arguing is that there is no
contrast between additive and collective, as there is between
those two and distributive, as shown in plenty of examples.

>I also forget whether there's a significant difference between pi ro loi
>and pi su'o loi. And if so, is pc failing to take it into account? Jorge?

I'm not sure pc went into it at all. There is definitely
a significant difference in my opinion. {pisu'o loi} is the
default. For example:

mi gairgau loi karda le bitmu
I cover the wall with cards.

I have to use a mass because it is certainly not the case
that each of the cards covers the wall. But I am not
saying that I cover the wall with the complete mass of
cards in existence. I have no contact with most of those
cards, so I could hardly use them for anything.

Claims with {piro loi} are much more drastic, so they
should be much more rare, that's why {pisu'o} is the
right default. Here is a nice example (inspired by some
explanations in the Loglan lesson on the subject):

piro loi jbopre cu banro
The mass of all Lojbanists is growing.

I have to use a mass because I don't really mean to say
that each Lojbanist is expanding (although that might
also be the case). I can't use just {loi} because that
might mean that some part of the mass is growing at the
expense of the rest, not what I mean. Ans I can't use
mathematical sets, because those don't grow.

>I inferred from Jorge's recent description that Loglan lo is used for
>Mr Rabbit; what I in bygone times called a 'myopic singularizer'.

Yes, gavagai, that is the main use of Loglan lo
as far as I can tell.

>The conceptual basis for the myopic singularizer is that a category is
>viewed as an individual, and members of the category are merely aspects
>of the individual.

Yes, I agree. This plays havoc with quantifiers though, which
rely precisely on viewing each member as distinct. So one
use of the myopic singularizer (the one most important use
maybe) is for things like waiting for a taxi and needing a
box where the scope of quantification has to be swallowed in.

>I also agree with Jorge that Lojban lo'e is probably the thing for this 
>(and
>also le'e for its **nonveridical** counterpart).

The resistance to adopting lo'e as the equivalent of Loglan
lo comes at least in part from the fact that lo in Loglan
is called "mass", and we inherited the disposition to say
that whatever we call "mass" must be what Mr Rabbit is.
Interestingly Loglan does separate the two meanings, but
they call "set" what we call "mass", i.e. the way to refer
to additive/collective properties.

>Canonical Lojban has not solved the Mr Rabbit issue, though; only Llambian/
>Llambiasian Lojban has. -- As in so many other respects too, of course.

Wow! I think this is the first time I see my name
adjectivized. Very flattering.

co'o mi'e xorxes


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com