Le jeudi 6 février 2014 20:33:19 UTC+9, selpa'i a écrit :
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.
Do you still mean
"SUMTI is individual" =ca'e {RO DA poi ke'a me SUMTI zo'u SUMTI me DA}
with the term "individual"?
If so, keeping {lo broda} to be individual requires attentiveness on the universe of discourse, and reduces the flexibility of the language.
Let me give an example.
lo prenu cu jmaji gi'e jukpa gi'e citka
I want to mean with this sentence that this {lo prenu} consists of at least two persons {by} and {cy}, and satisfies {jmaji} collectively {je} non-distributively, {jukpa} collectively {ja} distributively, {citka} non-collectively {je} distributively. This {lo} cannot be replaced by {loi} because I want it to satisfy a selbri non-collectively.
For this {lo prenu}, {by me lo prenu} is true, but {lo prenu me by} is false, so this {lo prenu} is not individual.
It is still possible that you don't include {by} and {cy} in your universe of discourse and say that {lo prenu} is individual, but it is your epistemology, and not defined by the language.