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

[Jorge Llambías <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

On 12/8/05, Kevin Reid <kpreid@mac.com> wrote:
> I have thought that the most sensible explanation is that the x2 of
> {gunma} is a set. Today, a discussion with Robin Lee Powell and John
> Cowan on #lojban resulted in the following complete list of
> conversions, which we agree is sufficient and consistent:
>
>          x1 kind      x2 kind    relation
>   gunma    mass       set        x2 is the set of all the parts of x1
>   cmima    individual set        x1 is a member of x2
>   pagbu    individual mass       x1 is a part of x2
>   selgunma set        mass       se gunma
>   selcmi   set        individual se cmima
>   selpau   mass       individual se pagbu
>
> The other simple explanation of {gunma}, that the x2 is all of the
> members as individuals, is incompatible with predicate logic.

Or at least with predicate logic without plural reference. But any
treatment of masses that does not reduce them to just another
variety of sets is on the same boat.

I would oppose redefining {gunma} in this way. Indeed I think what
we need is to reduce, not increase, the number of places that are
reserved for sets. But a thorough revision of place structures by
the BPFK to sort out these kinds of issues would be most welcome.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.