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

[tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com>]

2011/7/15 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.

I agree that sets don't do things mutually. But members can, right?
According to the current definition, what do x2 are members of x1, not
x1 itself. So, the definition itself seems to me compatible with your
(and my) understanding of sets.

It's a winding one, however:

  ko'a ce ko'e simxu lo nu broda
  = ge ko'a ko'e soi vo'a vo'e broda gi ko'a .e ko'e cmima da poi me
ko'a ce ko'e
  (ko'a and ko'e mutually do broda, and they are members of the set
"ko'a ce ko'e".)

We don't need to state that each simxu1 entity belongs to the same
set. That's somewhat like saying "pa lu'a lo'i gerku cu cadzu" (one
member of the set "dog" walks) instead of "lo gerku cu cadzu" (a dog
walks). "ce" or "lo'i", or the notion thereof, shouldn't be a
mandatory part of simxu1, in my opinion.

So, yes, "x1 do x2 to one another", stripped of the notion of set,
sounds good to me.


>> 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.

Do you think, in the ideal world, "ce, joi, jo'u, ju'e" except one
that's to be made generic (and their gadri equivalents) could be
discarded, i.e. having only one generic non-logical connective and one
generic gadri?

What is your prospect for the other JOI, such as "ce'o" and "fa'u"?
How do they relate to sets? Would it be preferable to express the same
thing by means other than connectives?


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.