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

The slide seems to have come through the "one of the referents of" locution, which started when the noun involved was a proper name {me la Kraislr} as "a thing called a Chrysler," more or less, which then got extended when non-names were used: "a thing called a the three kings" doesn't make much sense except as "a thing that is a referent of 'the three kings'" and hence to member ship. Of course, if {me} is restricted to proper names it has even less use (but is till important when needed) and so the shift to jest is probably wise. Pity, it made JCB so happy when he found it.

From: John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>
To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] "we" and masses. A bug in the CLL?

Looking back through the record, it appears that the shift of {me} from "is specific to" (originally as a way to create predicates from proper names) to "is one of (a member of)" applied to explicit, then implicit, sets took place first in Loglan, where the pressures creating it are not very clear. The shift was resisted in Lojban for a while but eventually acceded to, though old habits persisted. It was not inherent in xorlo and, indeed, would not have been particularly relevant until the almost final stage, when the plural quantification/L-set interpretation of {lo} was in place. Given that interpretation. it is important to have a short form for jest and {me} appears to have been appropriated. That leaves the (admittedly less pressing) need for a replacement for the old {me}, which is still recognized, though secondarily, in CLL. Apparently the ambiguity has ot bothered people much for 20 years (odd, given how many less serious problems have exercised people in the interim).

From: selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 5:26 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] "we" and masses. A bug in the CLL?

la .pycyn. cu cusku di'e
> 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.

{me} with the meaning of "among" is a big part of xorlo (as it gets invoked any time an outer quantifier is used). It's also in the CLL.

10.2) la BALtazar. cu me le ci nolraitru
Balthazar is one-of-the-referents-of “the three kings”.
Balthazar is one of the three kings. [1]

It's the ma'oste that has uses another meaning, but {me} cannot mean both, and the xorlo/CLL meaning is the more useful/necessary one in my opinion. So at least for some tersmu, "among" is what {me} means.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

--
[1]: http://dag.github.io/cll/5/10/

-- 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.

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

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