[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Individuals and xorlo
la .guskant. cu cusku di'e
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".
The term "mass" is confusing exactly because it has been used to mean so
many different things. I would avoid the term myself. However, whenever
I say mass, I mean {gunma}.
{lo gunma} is an individual, too. The referent of {lo gunma} is the
"mass", not its members, which is the whole point of {gunma}. I also
think that {gunma}'s semantics aren't very clear. We still don't have a
definite answer on what properties a {gunma} has, how those properties
are related to its members, and whether it can attain new properties,
and which ones. For me, a {gunma} is a whole new entity, and it can be
the value of a singular variable. There is also no question of
distributivity with {gunma}, as it is just one thing (unless you have
multiple {gunma}, in which case {lo PA gunma} is the same as any other
{lo PA broda}, not specifying distributivity).
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.
A term that I've been using, but which doesn't seem to be very
wide-spread (yet?), is "individual-collection". Anything that can be
expressed as {X jo'u Y jo'u Z ...} is an individual collection and is
identical to a {lo broda} with those {jo'u}-connected referents.
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.
The way I see it, any {lo broda} is an individual (or an
individual-collection). It doesn't matter what {broda} is. What kind of
individuals there are in {lo broda} depends on {broda}, but they are
still always individuals. There is no difference between {lo ckafi} and
{lo prenu} in terms of individualness.
mi'e la selpa'i mu'o
--
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.