Re: [lojban] "we" and masses. A bug in the CLL?

To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" <lojban@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: [lojban] "we" and masses. A bug in the CLL?

From: John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>

Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 19:06:01 -0700 (PDT)

Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=x-beenthere:x-yahoo-newman-property:x-yahoo-newman-id:x-ymail-osg :x-rocket-mimeinfo:x-mailer:references:message-id:date:from:reply-to :subject:to:in-reply-to:mime-version:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=WaPkBLBl3FTK5LRZOM/Tfe37Fds0lNg3iJGILejOIY8=; b=pTmJNNi5QeJunOPT1vmnjv95OC68mmT9gBLdU+NJ2QNNLDdESGXsuK/n6RB8zAXui5 InJjlHfarB1eHNSohxh7ZwEh+UjpHpr2C62CW97E6NEtFe4U1JBYD0iZ3x7NL1DZdZKZ plSk+0dWGX07ShpYg8AsjPQDlH/mfnlSU7JmkXAC4LK6wtkRTwdvw9lBrzB+sSm/EAr/ 0G9nCHVOWVkFaVm/JSpdUqbjqtZdZj+DvygspoyudtqMBpBL7/AsusL1QOFJPYuVK/Yg rtRRyZaWdWB1Gc0eP2t6XPTay7HoUJC6kyoKGxRWDbgr3KFzsrIbBCwPdLG/wEuLPqER PEwg==

In-reply-to: <51BE419F.4090806@gmx.de>

List-archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban>

List-help: <http://groups.google.com/support/>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>

List-id: <lojban.googlegroups.com>

List-post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>

List-subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>

List-unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe>, <mailto:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>

Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com

References: <8561d566-8f8b-4b46-9e7b-5fdbc1367b33@googlegroups.com> <51BDBA1D.80602@gmx.de> <CA+gZtgKULyTpGdDYwykN0H6bkUQJEVpoCSN=+PwCO4toXA+tGA@mail.gmail.com> <51BE419F.4090806@gmx.de>

Reply-to: lojban@googlegroups.com

Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com

I'm still finding this confusing, probably partly from Lojban terminology. mi'o is apparently the union of mi and do, written {mi jo'e do}?, without comment about how they interact with properties. To say, {ro mi'o}then says that they interact distributively and completely and thus amount to {ro mi e ro do}, as noted. Of course, other quantifiers would not break down so easily {su'o mi'o} is surely {su'o mi a su'o do} but nothing else works (well, {no ... e...}). I don't get the point about {mio}, largely because I don't quite see what it is supposed to be (it isn't given anywhere and doesn't appear to be Lojban).

From: selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] "we" and masses. A bug in the CLL?

la latro'a cu cusku di'e
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 9:14 AM, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de
> <mailto:seladwa@gmx.de>> wrote:
>
> ro mi'o = mi .e do
>
> While I agree with this suggestion (as we already discussed on IRC), I
> disagree with this equation. Instead ro mi'o = ro mi .e ro do.

Good point. I made the same point with the "mio" translation, but just went with singular {mi} and {do} here. {ro mi .e ro do} is obviously better.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

http://groups.google.com/group/lojban

https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out