[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Masses
I think I am getting two points confused here. One is whether a motley crew can pass for a unified whole. The second is whether the members of lo broda have to broda individually or possibly something more to the collective side, even all the way. On the first one, which I thought was the issue, I now have had later thoughts and think the motley crew is out. I was misled by the colloquial expression "the boys", which need not refer to only (or even at all) boys in a standard way. But when I came to apply that to Lojban, I found that I could not see 4 dogs and 2 cats as lo gerku, however well-organized they were. That is, everything in lo broda must somehow broda/participate in brodaing. On the second, the answer seems already clear: the members of lo broda broda in an appropriate way. If broda is surrounding a building, then the members are in it collectively; if it is being a student, then individually; and if it is carrying a piano, then someplace within that closed interval and not worth considering now
Sent from my iPad
On May 17, 2011, at 17:34, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 10:27 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> To try to state essentially the same point in a completely different way:
>> just as brodeing holds of the referentage of "lo broda" to any degree on the
>> coll--dist scale, so does "brodaing". On the plural reference model, "lo
>> broda" has many referents, and it needn't be the case that each is brode; my
>> point it that it also needn't be the case that each is broda.
>>
>> I'm not sure if you already agree with this point.
>
> I think I do, yes: "lo broda" does not require that each of its
> referents be broda, "lo broda" = "zo'e noi ke'a broda", not "zo'e noi
> ro ke'a broda".
>
> It seems though that the most common use of "lo broda" will be for
> "zo'e no ke'a broda" and not for "zo'e noi lu'o ke'a broda" or any
> other intermediate distribution. In fact for many (most?) broda "zo'e
> noi lu'o ke'a broda" may not even be available. How can things be dogs
> other than one by one? But when the "noi lu'o ke'a broda" form is
> available, I don't think it would be wise to disallow it. I think the
> cardinality can only count things that are broda one by one though, so
> it would seem that the presence of an inner quantifier forces the "noi
> ro ke'a broda" interpretation.
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>
> --
> 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.