Re: [lojban] xorlo and masses

On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:

* Saturday, 2011-08-13 at 06:30 -0700 - 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,

So you mean that the strongest tautology is not {ro lo broda cu broda},
but simply {lo broda cu broda}?

So for example, {lo besna} is ambiguous between having brains as
referents and having (e.g.) nerves as referents?

Worse, if you adopt the axiom that a whole satisfies a property if any
subwhole does, the referents could also include rhinoceroses.

No, it could not. While it is true that a brain is a mass of neurons, it is not true that a mass of neurons is a brain. The peripheral nervous system is a mass of neurons.

While it is true that a rhinoceros has a brain, it is not true that a rhinoceros is a brain.

The referent of {lo besna} must be one or more brains. Not components of brains, nor things which contain brains, but only brains themselves. There may be any number of brains, but each and every one must be an actual brain.

In any {lo broda cu brode}, /every/ referent of {lo broda} must broda. It is, however, possible that not every lo broda is brode-ing individually, but rather that some collective amount of the lo brodas is together brode-ing. Regardless, no matter what, ALL referents to {lo broda} must broda.

So with this meaning of {lo}, how would you unambiguously translate
"These brains are conscious", without the possibility of being
misunderstood as claiming that their component nerves are, nor electric
razors?

I can only see {ro lo ti besna poi ro ke'a besna cu sanji}.

{lo besna cu sanji} is the simplest way to put it.

> ----- 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.