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

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

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}.

> 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.

> 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.

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.