Re: [lojban] Re: A Proposed Explanation of {gunma}

[Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>]

On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 03:21:16PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> On 12/14/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 10:38:10PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > >
> > > I think the x1 is a single individual, and the x2 are many
> > > individuals together (i.e. they constitute the single
> > > individual x1 all together, not each on its own).
> >
> > OK, so you want to use joi for the x2 then (otherwise it doesn't
> > work at all).
> 
> Or {ju'o}.

You must mean jo'u.

The problem with jo'u is that it doesn't *mean* anything.  You can't
both be a collective *and* be unmixed; it's total lunacy.

> > The problem with that is that it's simply "du".
> >
> > ly ly gy gunma la xorxes joi la robin joi la bab joi lo drata
> >
> > You can replace "gunma" with "du" and it still works.
> 
> It wouldn't work with {ju'o}, and whether or not it works with
> {joi} would depend on whether you think {joi} (and {loi}) are
> reifying or not, i.e. whether you take {mi joi do} to refer to a
> single entity or to two entities together. I tend to prefer the
> latter view.

Neither.

"mi joi do" means nothing whatsoever outside of a predication, and
it's confusing to talk as though it does.

"mi joi do broda" means that you and I together did broda in such a
way that our involvement cannot reasonably be seperated.  Masses
only have meaning relative to predications.  This is something that
http://philosophy.syr.edu/mckay.html cleared up for me.

> > It makes the word totally useless.  Having it as a set to mass
> > conversion, however, makes it of some use.
> 
> For me, it is sets that are totally useless.

I disagree, and will fight on this as much as I can.

-Robin

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/