Le jeudi 6 février 2014 05:28:08 UTC+9, selpa'i a écrit :
la .guskant. cu cusku di'e
> Le mercredi 5 février 2014 20:47:54 UTC+9, selpa'i a écrit :
> If I may, Dan is asking why the unit {lo xanto} cannot be (implicitly)
> {lo ci xanto}, in which case three elephants would be counted as one
> counting off by threes. Using a property in zilkancu3 would probably be
> clearer for that reason. As it stands, some people seem to think that
> the zilkancu3 unit contains a context-dependent inner quantifier, thus
> counting of by {xo'e mei}. I don't think that's the intended
> meaning, so
> it should be stated clearly that we're dealing with singletons.
>
>
> If you mean simply "one-some" of a mass with the word "singleton", I
> agree with you for English "explanation" of {lo PA broda}. As for Lojban
> "definition", I would rather support the current definition, and need a
> Lojban definition of {kancu}, which is used in the definition of {zilkancu}.
Right, I'm not proposing to change the definition. I only explained the
reason for Dan's confusion. Making zilkancu (or kancu) clearer, would
solve the problem, but it would also help to explicitly state (in
English, for beginners) that in {lo PA broda}, we don't count by context
dependent units. Counting off by {lo broda} is intended to mean that {lo
ci broda} contains three individuals that each {broda}. This is what the
current definitions tries to say. It just wasn't clear enough for Dan or
la latro'a.
That's nice.
Although it will become out of topic, I have another suggestion related to the BPFK page of gadri.
"Any term without an explicit outer quantifier is a constant" should be changed to
"Any term without an explicit outer quantifier can be a constant",
because an usual predicate logic has an axiom on a constant c that "F(c) {inaja} there is at least one (individual) x such that F(x)";
this means that the sentence "any term without an explicit outer quantifier is a constant" automatically implicates an outer quantifier {su'o},
and it contradicts to xorlo itself that there are no default quantifiers.
Most general term, without quantifier, with no universe of discourse yet defined, should be called "free variable".
Once a context is given, it defines an universe of discourse, then each free variable in a sentence becomes a bound plural variable OR a constant (not always a constant), then the truth value of the sentence is specified; if a term denotes an individual, it can become a bound singular variable, then an outer quantifier of Lojban is also available for the term.
The whole procedure depends on the context, and the language itself should not define that a term is a constant.
> However, if you mean "individual" with the word "singleton", it is
> better not to state it, because any mass, no matter if it is used as
> collective or distributive, can be a unit "one-some" in some sense.
Once you have a mass, then that mass is a new individual altogether. But
a sumti like {mi'o} or {mi jo'u do} is not a mass, it's just two
individuals together.
I use the term "mass" as something in a domain of plural variable, saying nothing about collectivity/distributivity.
I know BPFK and you use the term "mass" only for "collective mass", but I think this usage is confusing for beginners, because:
1. CLL uses the term "mass" more generally, not always for collective mass;
2. the English word "mass" is too vague to be used as a technical term that involving collectivity;
3. it is useful to define "mass" as follows:
"mass" =ca'e "something in a domain of plural variable";
"collective mass" =ca'e "mass that satisfies the predicate collectively";
"distributive mass" =ca'e "mass that satisfies the predicate distributively".
If you suggest another short term for "something in a domain of plural variable, saying nothing about collectivity/distributivity", I would abandon my usage of "mass" in this meaning.
> An individual is defined as follows (based on Plural Predication by
> Thomas McKay, 2006):
>
> "SUMTI is individual" =ca'e {RO DA poi ke'a me SUMTI zo'u SUMTI me DA}
> where RO and DA are not a singular quantifier {ro} and a singular
> variable {da} of Lojban, but a plural quantifier and a plural variable
> respectively.
Yes, that is exactly the definition of "individual" I am using.
> If {zilkancu}_3 should be always an individual, {lo ckafi} is not an
> individual in many cases of universe of discourse, and it cannot be
> {zilkancu}_3.
{lo ckafi} is an amount of coffee. If I have two separate amounts of
coffee, then I can count them together {lo re ckafi}.
I would still call {lo ckafi} an individual. Using a property in
zilkancu3 has been suggested, so we either count by {lo ckafi} or {lo ka
ckafi}. The thing that makes {lo pa ckafi} different from {lo pa prenu}
is that splitting {lo pa ckafi} will result in two new {lo ckafi},
whereas splitting a person will just... kill it.
Yes, but whether {lo ckafi}, {lo prenu} etc. are individual or not depends on epistemology, and the epistemology depends on the universe of discourse, on the context.
It is not defined by Lojban.