[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Masses
Yeah, that is a rub. Officially (insofar as xorlo is official -- which is
probably more so than just about anything else), {lo} terms are neutral between
the distributive and collective senses (the word "mass" generates a whole nother
set of problems from Logjam history). Using it as both in a single sentence
seems wrong when you think about it, but perfectly natural in use: "The students
wore green headbands and surrounded the building.". "The girls dressed like Lady
Gaga but were a group of five." There is a temptation to take [lo] terms
without external quantifiers as representing collective use, since those with
quantifiers are always distributive, but, convenient as that would be (to avoid
questions about who carried the piano, say), there is greater convenience (it is
said) in the present system, which allows for the double use and also for cases
where we just don't know where we don't know (or it doesn't matter) how the
group pulled it off.
But that, of course, is separate from the issue about {-mei}. L-sets are a
little hard to get used to thought of as sets, but one of the rules about them
is that (abc)=((ab)c)=(a(bc))=(b(ac))=((abc)), so, there is no particular
problem in the same things constituting a pamei, a remei and a cimei. it's all
in how you (mentally or not) group them. And so, of course, is the matter of
what other predicates apply: taken one by one in the freest form the combined
armies are soldiers, in another form, they are armies. And another axiom is
(a)=a, so that. like it or not, your broda is also a pamei. Personally, I would
as soon take the language of {lo} and {-mei} as basic and not try to expand it
out in some string of quantifiers, other nameoids, {noi} or {poi} or whatever.
Each of these definitions seems to lack some of the simplicity and clarity of
the original language and never seem to fit conveniently into other contexts.
----- Original Message ----
From: Felipe Gonçalves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, May 14, 2011 5:30:26 PM
Subject: [lojban] Masses
coi rodo
From the talk <[lojban] "lo no">:
2011/5/14 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> I agree with the gist of tijlan's post, but I'd like to add some observations.
>
> On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 7:56 AM, tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com> wrote:
>> lo ci gerku = da poi gerku je cimei
>> lo no gerku = da poi gerku je nomei
>
> lo ci gerku = zo'e noi gerku gi'e cimei
> lo no gerku = zo'e noi gerku gi'e nomei
>
These interpretations look wrong to me. The individuals are {gerku},
while only the mass composed of them is a {cimei}. This distinction
is essential, so that, e.g., the referents of
{da poi jenmi je so'imei},
{zo'e noi jenmi gi'e so'imei}, and
{lo jenmi je so'imei}
can all be unambiguously understood to be an army (or armies) of
many soldiers, instead of a lot of armies, regardless of semantic
nuances between these expressions.
Were we to accept that a mass of broda can always be described as
broda in any of these ways, then we would have to accept that a
mass of two armies, each one composed of a thousand men is a
{jenmi gi'e solci gi'e remei gi'e ki'omei}. In particular, we must accept
{remei je ki'omei} to be no contradiction.
More importantly: How would I clarify that my broda is just a broda,
and not any conceivable mass (of masses of masses... ) of broda?
Perhaps by saying something like {broda gi'e gunma noda poi broda}?
In summary, systematically assigning to a mass the properties of its
individuals, while not logically problematic, is highly confusing, and
requires heavy work when a common disambiguation is called for.
I would say that the meaning of {lo PA broda cu brode} is closer to either
{PA da broda .i da poi broda cu brode} (CLL), or
{PA lo broda cu brode} (xorlo only), or
{zo'e noi gunma PA da poi broda cu brode} (xorlo only).
What do you think?
mu'o
mi'e .asiz.
--
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.