[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 06:46:54PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> > {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).

But then you don't follow McKay. His point is that plural reference
does not create a new entity that encompasses the various referents
referred to plurally.

> > 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.

When the two ways of referring are identical, {du} is appropriate.
When they aren't, it isn't.

For example, I wouldn't say: {LLG cu rinsa simxu} "The LLG greeted
each other", because I think of the LLG as a sinlgle entity. But
{mi joi do joi lo drata cu rinsa simxu} is perfectly fine, because
{mi joi do joi lo drata} does not refer to a single entity, even if we
together do constitute one.

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.