[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] About plural 'ro'
One casualty here seems to be what I had thought were tautologies: 'lo broda cu broda' (if brodaing is a collective activity) or 'ro lo broda cu broda' (if it is singular). But, if xorxes is right, the best we can have is 'su'o lo broda cu broda' (or maybe even 'pisu'o lo broda cu broda'). And that being the case, there can be things in lo broda that have nothing to do with brodaing, so that even 'ro lo broda particpate in brodaing" doesn't hold. The shortest way out is taking the bull by the horns and saying "lo broda is all and only those things that particpate in brodaing.". The two former "tautologies" still don't hold and the new one does, but there are no extraneous entries.
----- Original Message ----
From: John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, April 22, 2010 11:26:03 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] About plural 'ro'
Well, as noted, if those groups, bunches, whatever, are L-sets, then they correspond exactly to the plural quantification in McKay's book. Part of the question now is whether that is what plural quantification means in Lojban -- and perhaps just what the consequences of all this is in practice. To take a case in point 'lo bevri be lo plano' (where did we get that word?) refers to several things or a bunch. Now the things, which must be things that carry a piano, turn out in the hypothetical case we are looking at, to be pluralities or bunches (it takes at least three of the five participants to carry the piano). So, then, what satisfies 'me lo bevri be lo plano'? What is obviously there are the sixteen groups, whether bunches or just pluralities, of three or more participants. xorxes apparently is claiming that the right answer is just the three participants themselves, in spite of the fact that they don't satisfy the defining predicate. I suppose
you could claim that, since each of these groups satisfies the predicate, then the things that satisfy the predicate is the union of these, which would, in fact reduce the group of participants. But this looks perilous: though I can't come up with a good case where it is clearly wrong, I also can't prove that it is correct. One attempt along this line might be to consider that, while all the threesomes and foursomes actually carried the piano, the fivesome did not. The union would be the same, but the referent of the term would again be a plurality that did not in fact meet the property (and, in general, the fact that something unioned in has a property does not mean that the union does). , On the other hand, what xorxes pulls out is the right thing for the case and the question then is, where did he get it.
----- Original Message ----
From: And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, April 22, 2010 9:44:07 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] About plural 'ro'
Jorge Llambías, On 22/04/2010 02:13:
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 8:38 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
> (Not that it makes any difference if you want to talk about bunches,
> it's just that it is not necessary to invoke bunches.)
>
>> -- and of course, carrying a piano is very different from being in a group, even if the group is carrying a piano.
>
> Right, all that matters is that they carry the piano. It's not
> necessary to decide whether they are a group or not, and it is
> certainly not necessary to call them a group even if they are one.
If every possibly combination of individuals constitutes a group/bunch/set/collectivity, so that there is no doubt over the definitiion, is it necessary, and is it advantageous, to invoke plural quantification/predication?
--And.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.