[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:

> > or explicitly
> > massifying some tiher object like {lu'o lo
> > broda}.
> 
> {lu'o lo broda} would have to be equivalent to
> {loi broda}
> (and they would have to refer to more than one
> broda for
> lu'o/loi not to be pointless). Neither would be
> used to
> refer to a mass. If by massifying you mean
> something like
> {lo gunma be lo broda}, then yes.

Sorry, I was going by the wordlist that says lu'o
lo broda is the mass whose constituents are lo
broda.
 
> > > > 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
> > >
> > > I do think that they are the same thingS,
> > > possibly
> > > in the same predication relation even, but
> with
> > > {loi broda} blocking the distributive
> > > interpretation
> > > and {lo broda} not blocking it. The plural
> is
> > > significant
> > > because if they were to refer to one thing
> the
> > > distinction
> > > between them vanishes.
> >
> > I don't get the last point.  {loi broda} is
> just
> > some brodas of whom some property is
> predicated
> > collectively, {lo broda} is the same guys
> without
> > specifying whether the predication involved
> is
> > one way or the other. What distinction is
> lost?
> 
> I meant that if there is only one broda, then
> it makes
> no difference whether you use {lo broda} or
> {loi broda},
> and since I take {loi} to be the marked one,
> using it
> would not make much sense.
> 
> > > I thought you
> > > were bringing
> > > it up by suggesting that avatars/exemplars
> > > would be
> > > the constituents of an Urgoo, but I
> probably
> > > misunderstood.
> >
> > I don't suppose that Urgoo, Mr. Broda, for
> > example, has constituents.
> 
> OK. This is what you had said that led me
> astray:
> "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 -- 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?"
> 
> My point here is simply that avatars/exemplars
> are
> not what goes in the x2 of gunma.

Because, contrary to what I thought, lo broda and
loi broda are not masses.  Well, at least not
generally.  I think that following the wordlist,
which has {loi} for masses, is a problem here. 
We need some other terminology and none is handy
at the moment. So, masses have constituents but
loi broda is not a mass, whatever it is.  OK,
that makes things a little clearer.
 
> 
> > Which seems to mean
> > that either you have abandoned  Mr. Broda as
> the
> > referent of {lo broda} -- and with it several
> of
> > the peculiar properties of xorlo --
> 
> No, sorry. :)
> 
> But when Mr Broda is the referent of {lo
> broda},
> being one single thing, distributivity is
> irrelevant.
> 
> >or you are
> > using "not a single thing but several things"
> in
> > a very poetic way, which I can't unpack while
> > keeping it connected to the rest of the
> > discussion.
> 
> Not a single mass/bunch/group thing, i.e. not a
> single
> thing composed of several brodas. {lo broda} is
> a single
> thing (a single broda) in generic reference.

Well, not really a broda in them normal sense of
the term.  but that is an old argument.  Let me
see what I can make of this. On second thought,
let's not; the muddle of distributive and
non-distributive predications when applied to
singular "gneric" references is just to muddled
to sort out, especially when combined with the
simultaneous claim that {lo broda} also refers to
one or several brodas.  I havew always held that
xorlo is self-contradictory and this seems to
make the point clearer, though I am sure you have
a way to wiggle out of it.



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.