Re: [lojban] girzu gi'i gunma gi'i se gunma

[tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com>]

2011/7/14 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 8:30 AM, tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>  no'i la ciftoldi joi la .alis. ze'a simxu lo nu smaji catlu (newer version)
>>
>> Why "joi", given that "ce" would be in more accordance with the
>> dictionary definition of simxu1 (a set)?
>
> I don't use sets, since they don't really add much and they cause
> trouble in some cases. For example, consider this other sentence from
> Alice:
>
> .i lo re mei cu pilno sy lo nu kicne kei gi'e vregau lo bircidni sy
> gi'e simxu lo ka tavla ga'u lo sy stedu
>
> If you tried to do that with sets, you'd have to jump through some
> loops, since sets can't use stuff or rest their elbows on something.

Yes, I agree. And that loosening is what I assumed might have been the
case with your not having chosen "ce" in your revised translation. But
what about the older version, which presumably was more guided by the
pre-xorlo sumti-type-splitting grammar? Was that too your choice?


>>I'm personally of the opinion
>> that the dictionary doesn't have to confine this x1 to one type or the
>> other; but if it's just that we don't have to be as much strict about
>> what makes for simxu1, why not "ju'e", which presumably is already
>> generic?
>
> I would use "jo'u" now, since I think "joi" and "jo'u" are basically
> synonymous, but "joi" has the problem that some people interpret it as
> introducing a new entity (a "mass") that counts separately from the
> entities it is composed of. I couldn't really say how "ju'e" differs
> from them either.

Should at all "joi" and "jo'u" be distinguished according to the mixed
/ unmixed dichotomy prescribed by the dictionary, one example that
would illustrate the difference for me is this pair:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fried_egg
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omelette

Fried eggs are "whites jo'u yolks", while omelettes are "whites joi
yolks", according to their relative easiness and difficulty of
separating the two cooked components. But the criteria for such
easiness / difficulty can well be subjective. It doesn't seem to ever
have a rigorous logical basis. Whole milk, another example, could be
said to be "cream joi zo'e", since removing all the cream from the
finished product is not something that often occurs to most people;
but such removal is trivially done by skimmed milk producers, for whom
"cream jo'u zo'e" could be a more accustomed perception.

Personal criteria and decisions for "joi", "jo'u" and "ce" can be
wobbly throughout the course of Lojban learning, and
community-unanimous interpretations for their usage seem unlikely. I
opine: Just like we need a generic gadri, we need a generic
non-logical connective. "ju'e", the vague connective, is an immediate
candidate. But, from our experience with xorlo, we could as well think
of expanding the role of "joi" that's one-syllable shorter than
"ju'e". ("ce" might as well maintain its original role due to its
logical & mathematical significances.)


>>  ci mi'o
>>  = ci lo me mi joi do
>>  = ci da poi me mi joi do
>>
>> My question: Does this "da" refer to lo gunma or lo se gunma? In other
>> words, is each of the three referents of "ci da" a group or an
>> individual?
>
> As an aside, "ci da" does not have referents, since it's a quantifier
> binding a free variable. I understand your question, though. Does the
> domain over which "da" ranges contain a single member (one of those
> "mass" things) or maybe at least three of those "mass" things, or does
> it contain people (presumably at least three). I say no such things as
> "masses" are involved, mass-talk is just a way of saying that the
> reference to many is not to be taken distributively.

I sense that would be the least problematic interpretation.

I had "loi" in mind. If "da poi me mi joi do" meant "that which is a
mass thing composed of mi and do", could that be represented as "loi
me mi joi do"? If it could, I would then wonder whether or not "loi me
mi joi do" would contradict the other expansion of "mi'o", "lo me mi
joi do". And there would obviously be the inconsistency between what
we would usually mean by "ci mi'o" (three people) and what it would
expand into, "ci loi me mi joi do" (three groups of people).


mu'o mi'e tijlan

-- 
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.