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

[Robin Lee Powell <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 06:46:54PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> 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. 

Agreed.

> {mi joi do} refers to two things, you and I, 

Actually, it doesn't mean anything to my mind, but if it did, it
would be a single thing: the combination of the two of us (WRT some
predication).

> 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}.

And there we disagree.  I insist that assignment of a joi to a name
or identifier of any type is exactly du, because for the purposes of
any predication, the two things are identical.

> > > 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. 

I agree that the gismu that require sets are, in the main, pretty
dumb; that's a seperate issue AFAIK.

> And no ambiguity whatsoever, as far as I can tell, would result
> from using masses in those places instead.

In most cases, I agree; set restrictions should instead be
non-individual (i.e. set/mass) restrictions.

I can't think of any counter-examples off the top of my head, but I
bet Kevin can.

-Robin

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/


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.