[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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



Well, it is Lojban terminology at work again: mi and do are sets, if anything with a name (L-sets), so "union" seems appropriate, while "along with" sounds like accompanying, not union.  {lo}expressions are also sets in the same sense.  If {lo'i} means something else, it means C-sets, which are virtually useless for linguistic purposes and belong, if at all, to MEX. 
In passing, I note {me} being used for "is a member of", which is not what it means, although I suppose it does include that meaning as a remote part.



From: selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 2:29 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] "we" and masses. A bug in the CLL?

la .pycyn. cu cusku di'e
> 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}?,

Not a union, since {mi} and {do} aren't sets in the Lojban {lo'i}-sense.
So, not {jo'e}, but {jo'u}, which creates a "group" like a {lo}-sumti.

{mi jo'u 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...}).

Well, of course it's {su'o mi .a su'o do}. {su'o} corresponds to {.a},
and {ro} to {.e}, that's why the two expressions have different expansions.

However, a more general way to write either _expression_ is:

    PA mi'o
=    PA da poi ke'a me mi'o
=    PA da poi ke'a me mi jo'u do

Thus:

    ro mi'o
=    ro da poi ke'a me mi jo'u do
    "For all X such that X is among the group of me and you."
    "Everything that is among the group of me and you."

and

    su'o mi'o
=    su'o da poi ke'a me mi jo'u do
    "There exists some X such that X is among the group of me and you."
    "At least one thing that is among the group of you and me."

The basic point is that:

    mi .e do me mi jo'u do

> 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).

"mio" is one of the loglan words for "we". It appeared earlier in this
thread. I deliberately avoided the curly {}-quotes to set it apart from
the Lojban words, else it really does look like a typo.

Definition of "mio" (which does *not* correspond to {mi'o}):
> mio (p) we/us/ourselves, in the "I/me and others independently"
> sense, the 1st 3rd person multiple variable. Equivalent to 'mi, e
> da'.

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.




--
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.