[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 Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 03:21:16PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > Or {ju'o}.
>
> You must mean jo'u.

Oops, yes, I did.

> 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.

It's undefined, just like {lo}.  jo'u:joi::lo::loi

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

We agree then. In particular, it does not refer to a single entity
that contains us.

> "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.

Indeed. Then {mi joi do se gunma ko'a} means that you and I, together,
constitute the single entity ko'a. {mi joi do} refers to two things, you
and I, whereas {ko'a} refers to a single thing, that which you and I
constitute, let's say a society. Then {mi joi do na du ko'a}.

> > For me, it is sets that are totally useless.
>
> I disagree, and will fight on this as much as I can.

Sets in Lojban seem to be like gender in some languages. You just
have to memorize which places require them, and then use sets in
those places. There are hints to guess which places will require them,
but no sure rule. And no ambiguity whatsoever, as far as I can tell,
would result from using masses in those places instead.

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.