Le dimanche 16 février 2014 23:26:04 UTC+9, xorxes a écrit :
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 4:40 AM, guskant
<gusni...@gmail.com> wrote:
I meant I was deceived by the description on the gadri page that {lo broda} "refers generically to any or some individual or individuals". Because I knew what is among and what is individual, I believed that "individual" on the page is something different from what is defined in the theory of among. Actually, the word "individual" is not necessary for definition of {lo}. If {lo} were first defined, and after that "individual" were defined, then I would not have been deceived.
I agree that the definition is not ideal. It's just the least bad we could come up with at the time. I prefer the one in Lojban.
Whether {ro'oi da su'oi de ro'oi di poi ke'a me de zo'u de me di ije de me da} is applied or not to a universe of discourse is not always important in usual conversation. We can talk with each other without mentioning individuals:
- xu do djica tu'a lo ckafi
- go'i iji'a tu'a lo sakta
It is not necessary to mention that {lo ckafi} and {lo sakta} are individuals. They can exist as non-individual, as long as we don't apply an outer quantifier to them.
I agree, but it doesn't seem harmful to take them as individuals either. If it's followed by "mi ba zi dunda lo re da do", atomicity has been invoked and now they are individuals (each of them one).
Yes, and if it is follwed by "mi ba zi dunda cy jo'u sy do", we can still avoid atomicity. As a more vague _expression_, {xai} of Pierre Abbat instead of {cy jo'u sy} may be suitable.
Atomicity depends on speakers' epistemology, and Lojban can serve an enough variety of expressions for both atomist and non-atomist.
The thing is that the language has from its design a strong bias towards atomicity. Numbers don't make much sense without any atoms to count, and numbers are a very basic feature, not just of Lojban but of most natlangs (maybe all of them except allegedly Piraha). So even if we don't take atomicity as a common ground axiom, in practice it seems that it can always be invoked without any special effort.
I should agree to the point that Lojban has a strong bias towards atomicity.
However, as for the current definition in Lojban of inner quantifiers, we can avoid mentioning "individual".
{lo PA broda} =ca'e {zo'e noi ke'a broda gi'e zilkancu li PA lo broda}
As usual custom, we may regard {lo broda} at the end as an individual, but "being an individual" is too strong condition for zilkancu_3 being a unit. zilkancu_3 must have "one-some" in some sense, but "one-some" has broader meaning than "individual".
For example, we may count {lo rokci} by its spatial detachment from environment, by its weight, by its spatial volume, by its radioactivity etc. Even a non-atomist can count {lo rokci} by one-some in some sense: when {lo rokci} is counted by one becquerel, a non-atomist considers that a half of {lo rokci} is also {me lo rokci}, that {lo rokci} is not an individual, and that {lo panono rokci} is still meaningful.
Even though you did not mean non-individual of zilkancu_3 when it was defined, it can be interpreted as above under the condition that {kancu} is defined enough vaguely. I support the current definition of {lo PA broda} in Lojban including such vagueness of zilkancu_3.
In any case, if you are still thinking of putting in writing a detailed alternative presentation of "lo" I will be interested to read it.
I am preparing my personal gadri page, and will definitely need your opinion.