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

[John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>]

--- MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com wrote:

> In a message dated 12/15/2005 4:22:08 AM
> Central Standard Time, John E 
> Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> via
> ecartis@digitalkingdom.org writes:
> 
> 
> > Although I have at one time or another argued
> for
> > most of these positions and tried to
> interrelate
> > them, I now think that some of them are
> seriously
> > flawed and that a couple of errors pervade
> the
> > list above.  
> 
> > -- 
> 
> > they have properties that 
> > depend upon the
> > and 
> 
> > from individuals or plurals in that they take
> > collective predication rather than
> distributive
> > (or individual individual predication).   
> 
> What do you think about the first two points? 
> You have only listed them, 
> AFAICT.  Or should the double dash be "are"?

Well, "which are" or "namely."  I think they are
correct, although, when talking to xorxes at
least, I would have to say that these claims are
not about masses in his sense -- namely,
institutionalized, reified, groupings -- but
about the more informal loi broda.  Of course,
most of this applies to xorxes' masses as well.  

 
> > think that the fourth point -- that (some)
> masses
> > do the work of mass nouns is correct but that
> > that description of this role -- in Lojban --
> is
> > incorrect as given above. The third
> > characteristic -- that a mass inherits all
> the
> > properties of its members (I used to call it
> a
> > logical sum) -- I now think rests upon some
> > interlocking errors.
> > 
> > 
> stevo
>