* Friday, 2011-08-12 at 23:04 -0600 - Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com>:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> > * Friday, 2011-08-12 at 07:32 -0700 - John E Clifford <
> > kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
> >
> > > Now, then, a brief summary of xorlo: 'lo broda' refers to some broda
> > > (contextually specified) or, equivalently, to a whole composed of
> > > those some broda (a Lesniewskian set -- very different from the usual
> > > sets). The expression gives no indication whether these broda are
> > > acting individually or collectively with respect to their
> > > predicate(s), hence the propriety of conjoining an apparently
> > > collective use with an apparently distributive one. To be explicitly
> > > collective, one must say 'loi broda'; to be explicitly distributive
> > > say either 'PA lo broda' or 'lu'a lo broda'. The referents of all
> > > these expressions are the same: some brodas or a whole consisting of
> > > those some brodas. They differ only in how these broda (or this
> > > whole) relates to its predicate(s).
> >
> > So in all cases, the referents of {lo/loi broda} are entities which
> > individually broda?
>
> No, just loi. lo is completely non specific.
I'm not sure what "non specific" means, but... all I'm claiming is that
{ro lo broda cu broda} is a tautology, where {ro lo broda} quantifies
distributively over the referents of {lo broda}. Is this controversial?
> > This appears to be in contradiction with the BPFK section definition of
> > loi:
> >
> > loi [PA] broda - lo gunma be lo [PA] broda
> >
> > (under the interpretation I understand you as giving, the individual
> > referents of the left hand side would generally not gunma, while those
> > of the right hand side must)
> >
> > Or am I misinterpreting something?
> >
> > > ----- Original Message ----.
> > > From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
> > > To: lojban@googlegroups.com
> > > Sent: Thu, August 11, 2011 5:11:34 AM
> > > Subject: [lojban] xorlo and masses
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > These seem to indicate conflicting semantics for handling of masses.
> > >
> > > (I'll use 'mass' in the CLL sense, intended to be synonymous with
> > > 'gunma'/'group'/'collective'/'plurality')
> > >
> > > The first appears to indicate that masses are still first-class
> > > entities, such that e.g. in {lo tadni cu sruri le dinju}, the referents
> > > of {lo tadni} are masses of students, not individual students. In
> > > particular, it is reasonable for that {lo tadni} to have just one
> > > referent.
> > >
> > > The second appears to indicate that sumti can sometimes be 'flagged' as
> > > being interpreted collectively - the referents are the same whether it
> > > is so flagged or not, but if it is so flagged then a bridi involving it
> > > is understood to hold of the mass consisting of the referents, rather
> > > than distributively of the referents themselves.
> > >
> > > [...]
Attachment:
pgphuGZmVscc6.pgp
Description: PGP signature