Re: [lojban] Lions and levels and the like

[maikxlx <maikxlx@gmail.com>]

I forgot to reply to this part:


On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 8:30 AM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:

 The only Lojbanic thing I see in all of this at the moment is that that maximal bunch ought to be given a separate gadri.

As a longtime lurker on this list, I would just assume personally avoid espousing any such specific proposal for the time being :-)

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:

* Monday, 2011-11-14 at 15:24 -0500 - maikxlx <maikxlx@gmail.com>:

> But yesterday as I was reading random online materials (this one -
> http://amor.cms.hu-berlin.de/~h2816i3x/Talks/GenericitySeattle.ho.pdf ), I
> found what I think is a good bunch-resisting, kind-example:
>
> - (2a) Transistors were invented by Shockley.

I don't think we should feel obliged to treat as a jbokind (whatever
they end up being) everything for which English uses a bare plural.

In this case, surely what Shockley invented was the idea (si'o) of
a transistor.

Martin

So, would you have us write {lo si'o [za'e] grezunca'a cu se finti la .caklis.}?

I believe that pretty much {lo si'o broda} = {lo sidbo be lo broda}, where lo broda is again is a reference to a kind with clearly _no_ actuals/mundanes/instances, either needed or wanted.  Would you rewrite {lo broda cu sidbo} as {lo si'o broda cu sidbo}?

The idea that both you and John invoke is to grammaticize Lojban's kind references (and John would probabIy like to grammaticize generics as well).  In all honesty, I agree we don't have to follow English, and it's worth considering the idea theoretically.  It might actually be beneficial*, but aside from the arguable redundancy of kind-marking, I don't believe that anyone has cataloged the large number of bridi places with respect to kinds and generics; each place may well admit one, the other, or both.  Until that happens we really don't know how big of a change this would entail -- or at least _I_ don't as a not-so-frequent user.

*For example clearing up the specific/nonspecific distinction in "mi sisku lo broda" would be valuable and should be mandatory -- assuming that both readings are allowed, as I believe they are.

-Mike

-- 
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.