[lojban] Re: Trying to follow XXS

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

Rob:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 11:47:06PM +0100, And Rosta wrote:
> > 'Fuzzy collectives' are handled by lV. That leaves lVi semantically
vacant.
> > At the same time, there is no easy way to say "The things that are each
> > broda are jointly but not separately brode", so one suggestion is to use
> > lVi for this purpose. (Personally, though, I think it would be nicer to
> > generalize the notion of 'set' ever so slightly, so that lV'i would
cover
> > this.)
>
> Okay, I understand. But masses and mathematical sets should not be
> combined. Mathematical sets don't walk or talk or carry pianos; they
> have members and that's about it. Nevertheless, they are useful in some
> Lojban constructs, and when used correctly they make things
> _exceedingly_ clear.

Do we really need gadri specifically for mathematical sets, though, rather
than for xod-collectives in general (i.e. jointly-but-not-separately)?

> > IIRC, the change is from {me mi moi} to {mo'e mi moi} or {vei mo'e mi
moi}
> > or something like that. If {mi moi} were allowed, that'd be great,
though.
>
> Argh. {vei mo'e mi moi} is a total loss.
>
> So yeah, this part sounds messy. I suggest keeping it separate from XXS.
> The less stuff that is tacked on, the more likely it is that people will
> at least consider supporting XXS.

Definitely. That page is still a discussion page, not least because there
are still unresolved issues with XXS (viz, what lVi means). Any version
that is put forward to the community for approval would be cleaned up
and pared down.

--And.