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

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 5:45 AM, tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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 abandoned sets years before xorlo, yes. I don't think sets do things
"mutually". just as they don't use things, and they don't rest their
elbows. So for me "simxu" means "x1 do x2 to one another", and not "x1
has members that do x2 to one another". I don't think the two meanings
are really very compatible, although in general it is obvious which
one someone is using.

> 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.

If you are thinking of "ko'a jo'u ko'e" or "ko'a joi ko'e" counting as
one thing, rather than as two things (assuming ko'a is one thing and
ko'e is another one thing), then I don't agree. If you are thinking of
a possible distinction between "lo broda jo'u brode" and "lo broda joi
brode", then maybe.

When you say "whites and yolks", I'm not sure if you are thinking
"ko'a jo'u/joi ko'e" or "lo broda jo'u/joi brode".

> 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.)

For me, the gadri equivalent of "lo" is "jo'u". It would be nice that
it were "joi", if we could extract from it its harmful association
with the word "mass", but that's a very hard battle.

> 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"?

I don't have a use for mass things, at least not ones created by "joi"
and "loi" rather than by proper new entity creators like "lo gunma
be". For me "loi" and "joi" only say that the many referents of the
resulting sumti (not the *one* referent of the resulting sumti) are
not to be taken distributively but they are to be taken together.

But different people have different ideas about what "loi" and "joi"
do. Some people think they refer to things called masses, such that
you can count each mass separately and independently of its members.

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.