[lojban] Re: xorlo

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 9:09 PM, Squark Rabinovich<top.squark@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Entity or not, that's a philosophical question of little relevance, from my
> point of view. The important things is understanding how to use this thing.

By "this thing" I take it you mean "this word", namely "lo".

> And since we need a name for it might as well be "bunch" (it might be "green
> tomato" as far as I'm concerned).

We do have many names for "lo", it is a word, it is a cmavo, it is a
gadri, etc, it is not a bunch. The issue of new entities comes about
when discussing what "lo jubme" for example refers to. My answer is
that it refers to tables, not to bunches or to a bunch. To refer to
bunches there are better words, such as "lo gunma", "lo girzu", "lo
selcmi", etc. Saying that "lo jubme" is "a bunch of tables", or
anything else besides "tables", only invites confusion, in my opinion

> So, do I understand correctly that xorlo
> splits the old notion of "mass" into two notions: "mass" and "bunch".

Everybody seems to understand it a bit differently, but I wouldn't put
it that way. In my understanding, we have:

loi = lo gunma be lo
lei = lo gunma be le
lai = lo gunma be la

So loi/lei/lai are fully reducible to lo/le/la. The problem with the
old notion of "mass" is that there were several notions mixed
together, and there probably still are.

>"Mass"
> applies to continuous (uncountable) things whereas "bunch" applies to
> discrete (countable) things.

That's the notion of "mass" related to "mass nouns", and you are right
that at least some of the time that was part of what "mass" was
supposed to mean in Lojban slang. But it has nothing to do with the
classical "lei ci nanmu cu bevri lo pipno", for example. The three men
carrying the piano together are very much countable. This has to do
with collective predication, not with mass nouns.

> Also lo is as specific as le but veridicial?

No, "lo", at least in xorlo, is neither specific nor unspecific. "lo"
just doesn't mark specificity one way or the other.

> How is it possible, then, to refer to unspecific objects? Suppose I want to
> say "there exists a broda such that..." or "all broda have the property..."

Those are quantified expressions, there was no change in them: "su'o
broda cu ..." and "ro broda cu ..." work just as you expect.

> Summing up, lo broda is "the bunch of broda" ?

I don't think "bunch" helps any, in fact it misleads. The closest
English for "lo broda" is "brodas", or perhaps "broda(s)". English
doesn't really have a number-neutral and specificity-neutral
expression like "lo broda". You have to choose between "brodas" or
"the brodas" or "a broda" or "the broda", depending on context.

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.