Le samedi 8 février 2014 09:14:32 UTC+9, selpa'i a écrit :
la .guskant. cu cusku di'e
> Le vendredi 7 février 2014 20:56:57 UTC+9, selpa'i a écrit :
> Note that I said "is an individual or an individual-collection". That
> is, {lo broda} can refer to one individual or to multiple individuals,
> but we are always dealing in terms of individuals. It doesn't mean that
> {lo broda} must be singular, it only means that whether or not it is
> plural, the only referents it has are individuals.
>
>
>
> OK, now I understand what you meant.
> However, I don't agree to calling {lo broda} "an individual" or "a
> collection of individual" for two reasons.
>
> 1. There is no guarantee that "something in a domain of plural variable,
> saying nothing about collectivity/distributivity (SDPV)" is always "an
> individual" or "a collection of individual".
What else is a possible referent? Can you name anything that isn't an
individual (or more than one individual)? Are we using different senses
of the word?
> An individual is only a
> special case of SDPV. Lojban should not force a speaker to have an
> individual of {lo sidbo}, for example, in the universe of discourse.
I don't understand this point.
> Regarding SDPV as "an individual" or "a collection of individual" is
> atomism, and should not be forced by the language.
I'm not sure what is being forced here. I cannot think of anything that
is in the DPV that is not an individual.
SDPV is first given, and then "individual" is defined using it. When a universe of discourse is given, there is no need that SDPV is finally separated into individual pieces. Having SDPV without individual pieces in the universe of discourse should be permitted. I will discuss it also in the next post as response to la xorxes.
> 2. Calling {lo broda} "an individual" or "a collection of individual"
> may let a beginner think of set theory. In order to make clear that the
> concept of SDPV is completely different from that of a set, such a risk
> should be avoided.
Does "collection" really remind you of set-theory? That's certainly not
the direction I was going for with the term. Maybe having no term at all
is better. We could just go back to saying "one or more individuals".
Yes, and I will discuss it also in the next post.