[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Masses
Thanks for your clarifications John,
I must say, however, that I am only highly disturbed. Before I proceed with any
discussion, I must ask for help (move this to [lojban-beginners] if
appropriate).
I have been believing that a mass (whatever you call it) was just as much
a logical object as anything else, of a somewhat vague nature, but
uniquely associated to a specific set, and as such, to a specific cardinality.
This is clearly wrong. Where the CLL introduces lVi descriptors I read
"A mass has the properties of each individual which composes it, and may have
other properties of its own as well. This can lead to apparent contradictions."
which basically denies my suggestion that masses should not inherit the
properties of its individuals.
The CLL was my first and primary source for learning lojban, so I can only
conclude that this interpretation of masses came to my mind because I felt
the need to express such an idea.
My big question now is how should I correct my lojban writings and thoughts
to the actual definition and community usage of descriptors. For now, I would
appreciate if someone answered the following more specific questions
1. Is {lo jenmi cu sonci} usually true?
2. Is {lo sonci cu jenmi} usually true?
3. For what kind of X can I guarantee {X cu broda naje broda} to be false?
4. What kind of X can refer to a group of three dogs and two cats as a
single object
for which {X cu gerku je mlatu} is false?
5. How can I unambiguously say "The army is composed of a thousand soldiers",
as opposed to "a thousand divisions" or "a thousand limbs"?
Perhaps {lo jenmi cu ki'omei lo'i sonci}?
6. How can I unambiguously say "The army is powerful", as opposed to "it has
a powerful soldier" or "it has a powerful division"?
I'd also like to receive pointers about L-sets.
Thanks in advance for any attention provided.
I also hope this is enlightening to other lojbanists.
mu'o
mi'e .asiz.
On 14 May 2011 20:33, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
>
--
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.