Re: [lojban] xorlo and masses

[John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>]

Wrong, but not controversial.  How the parts of lo broda broda is not an issue.  
Consider, lo sruri be le dinju.  Its individual parts do not sruri le dinju 
individually, only some more numerous whole within the bigger whole does (or 
maybe only the whole whole).  The collective/distributive distinction is 
manifest only in how 'lo etc. broda' is used, not in how its referent is 
constituted,


----- Original Message ----
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, August 13, 2011 3:29:34 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] xorlo and masses

* 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.
> > >
> > > [...]

-- 
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.