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

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

On 12/16/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>  It does, however, point to
> another place where the gadri solution does not
> work -- and a much more common one than the
> previous peculiarities: when the sumti is not a
> description at all.

{lo'u ko'a} for non-distributive and {ro ko'a} for distributive.

> The immediate idea was using something like the
> {fV} series to show places (mark on the predicate
> as it were,)so
> {ko'a ko'e ko'i broda fe d fu c gi'e (I suspect
> it has to be a different connective at this
> point) brode fa c fu d vau (maybe this will have
> to change as well) fo'a fo'e fo'i}

Actually, if d and c are syntactic sumti, that parses
correctly as is. So all you would need is to add two
members of KOhA (or possibly just one plus a
 -nai version). Then you would have {le sruri be fa d}
and {le sruri be fa c} for the description forms,
which could also be shortened to {le d sruri} and
{le c sruri} (as long as you didn't have to use another
sumti in that (possesive) position).

> > Ulish?
> >
> Able to occur in a wide variety of contexts, even
> if not literally after (or before) absolutely any
> word.

>>From "universalish"?

Searching the web I can only find an Ulish Booker
that plays for the Pittsburgh Steelers:
<http://cbs.sportsline.com/nfl/players/playerpage/396517>

> Back to something you said earlier, namely that
> gunma1 stands for a single thing and gunma2
> stands for the several things that comprise it.
> While you are objecting bunches (I think -- you
> may just be pointing out that the bunches theses
> so far are not quite right for plural
> quantification/reference),

Actually, I neither object nor endorse them. I only refrained
from using any noun (like "mass" or "bunch") to designate
the loi/joi sumti so as to avoid as much as posible any
notion of reification.

> I wonder what one
> thing you have in mind for gunma1.

Anything with constituents: groups, bunches, aggregates,
stacks, crowds, committees, congregations, etc. I just don't
want it as a special grammatical object.

> Given that I
> also take you as saying that {lo broda} and {loi
> broda} are the same thing only with difference in
> declared distributivity, I suppose (given your
> views on what lo broda is) that loi broda -- and
> hence gunma1 generally

"Hence" is inappropriate there, since {loi broda} would not
be the typical sumti to put in the x1 of gunma.

-- is some sort of Urgoo,
> at least in many cases.  In which case I suppose
> that gunma2 is a list of
> avatars/slices/exemplars/... .  Do I have any of
> this close to right?

I think the best gismu for avatars/exemplars (not too sure about
slices) is {mupli} (but not with its official place structure, so
I will use a lujvo instead):

  la fidos cu selkaimupli lo gerku
  Fido is an instance of a dog.

I don't think the avatar/exemplar/token/... relation has a lot to do
with {gunma}. I can say:

   le kanmi cu gunma la djan jo'u la meris
   The committee consists of John and Mary.

or:

   lo kanmi cu gunma lo prenu
   Committees consist of people.

So it seems to be orthogonal to genericity.

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.