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

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



Ahah!  More terminological problems.  You use {me} because there is not cmavo for *jest* and, indeed, no proper way to say that some object is among lo broda without periphrasis.  And that goes back to pre-xorlo problems with sets (which could only be C-sets back then) which were useless (back then, but why bother making them useful now?), and "masses" (back then), which no one understood well.  But now that all that has been clarified, let's get rid of the relics and stick with what we have, shoving the rest to MEX or farther away.  We still don't have a cmavo for *jest* but, since that seems more likely to be useful than what {me} does, maybe a shift is in order (we have all those useless words bound up with masses and C-sets that can be reassigned).



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



Sent from my iPad

On Jun 17, 2013, at 7:26, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:

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.
 
 
--
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.