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

[John E Clifford <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

--- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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).

Better and better

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

Type face problem: it was "ui" not "ul." Has a
distribution like member of the selma'o that
includes {ui}.

> 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.

In English? It seems that it is in Lojban, at
least often.  I gather that your objection is
metaphysical, which is fine.  The objections to
plural quantification are also metaphysical at
hear.  I picked "bunch" because it seemed to me
to carry the least metaphysical freight and
indeed could easily be read either way (with
perhaps slightly different stress patterns).  The
point of bunches is that the theses seem to be
the same whichever metaphysics you support. 
(McKay's hollering against the unversal fusion
principle is again apparently metaphysical rather
than formaal, since in Chapter 6, T23 he proves
that every two pluralities have a unique sum --
and indeed the stronger claim -- T22--that if
there are any pluralities at all there is one
that includes everything.  And, of course, he has
used brackets throughout as though they gave
names of things.)

> > 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.

Now that is interesting.  I would have thought
that {loi broda} was an archetypal mass.  If not
it, what?

> -- 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.

Someday I need to find out what is the meaning in
Lojban speak of "orthogonal;"  I don't get "at
right angle to" even as a metaphor (or rather it
makes sense as at least two conflicting metaphors
and I don't see enough usage to figure which is
intended).  

>>From this I get either that you don't think that
{lo broda} and {loi broda} are the same thing(s)
in different predication relations or that you
don't think that masses are just are things in
collective predication, leaving it open what they
are exactly.  Or both, of course.  In either
case, I don't see what that has to do with
genericity, which I tend to read as your take on
at least {lo broda}.


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.