Le mercredi 26 février 2014 06:49:07 UTC+9, xorxes a écrit :
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:04 AM, guskant
<gusni...@gmail.com> wrote:
Le mardi 25 février 2014 07:59:04 UTC+9, xorxes a écrit :
It seems to me that it would be better to use "si'e" rather than "mei" for that purpose, and "pagbu" instead of "me". If you allow things like "so'i da poi me lo pa nanba" you pretty much destroy "me" as "among" and you turn it into "pagbu".
When {lo nanba} is non-individual, {so'i da poi me lo pa nanba} is not allowed. non-individual referents cannot be in the domain of {so'i da}, because only individuals are allowed in the domain of singular variables.
Right, but then you need an additional constraint on your pseudo-individuals: they must be either individuals themselves, or they must be atomless, they cannot properly contain any individuals. By "non-individual" I assume you mean atomless, not containing any individuals at all, rather than merely not being an individual.
Right.
If {P si'e} were allowed for P>1, {si'e} would have been better than {me} for non-individual referents.
It seems that nobody disagreed either. I can't say I understand the negative si'e, but I don't have a problem with the greater than one.
According to the current definition:
x1 number si'e x2 x1 pagbu x2 gi'e klani li number lo se gradu be x2
it seems that a number followed by {si'e} cannot be larger than 1 unless {pagbu} is interpreted very broadly so that x1 of {pagbu} can be larger than x2.
I'd keep "pagbu" as normal, and define si'e more carefully so that it can cover more cases.
That is what I wish.
Under this condition, if {P si'e} is used for counting up, a number followed by {si'e} should be changed every time another referent becomes to be considered.
ko'a pa si'e
i
ko'a fi'u re si'e ije ko'a jo'u ko'e pa si'e
i
ko'a fi'u ci si'e ije ko'a jo'u ko'e jo'u ko'i pa si'e
...
ko'a pa si'e ko'a gi'e fi'u re si'e ko'a jo'u ko'e gi'e fi'u ci si'e ko'a jo'u ko'e jo'u ko'i
Yes, and speakers may not want to change the unit every time counting up.
Using {ke'a}, our definitions are described as follows:
(D1) ke'a su'o N mei := su'oi da poi me ke'a ku'o su'oi de poi me ke'a zo'u ge da su'o N-1 mei gi de na me da
(D2) ke'a N mei := ke'a su'o N mei gi'e nai su'o N+1 mei
(D3) lo PA broda := zo'e noi ke'a PA mei gi'e broda
When (D1-7) defines for {ko'a}, the referent of {ko'a} satisfies {su'o pa mei} _non-distributively_.
Any other referents that are {me ko'a} do not satisfy {su'o pa mei}.
As for (D1-7), speakers who talk about non-individual referents may select not only {ko'a} but also any arbitrary {ko'e} {ko'i}... as {su'o pa mei} as long as the selected referents don't conflict each other.
What do you mean by "conflict"? Overlap? Or do you mean that some things are selected as pseudo-atoms, so that, for example:
ko'a su'o mei
ko'e su'o mei
ko'i goi ko'a jo'u ko'e su'o mei
So ko'a and ko'e are pseudo-atoms, because nothing among them (besides themselves) satisfies "su'o mei", but "ko'i" is not a pseudo-atom, because there are things among them, different from ko'i itself, that do satisfy "su'o mei".
Then all and only the pseudo-atoms will satisfy "pa mei", and only things composed of one or more pseudo-atoms will satisfy "su'o mei"..
Yes.
You will also need to modify your (D1) to:
(D1') ke'a su'o N mei := su'oi da poi me ke'a ku'o su'oi de poi me ke'a gi'e su'o mei zo'u ge da su'o N-1 mei gi de na me da
Otherwise, if ko'a and ko'e are both atomless "ko'a jo'u ko'e cu re mei" will be false. Without the additional restriction in (D1) "ko'a jo'u ko'e su'o N mei" will be true for any positive N, because you only need ko'a as your starting point and then you can keep adding pieces of ko'e to count up because the original (D1) doesn't require the add ons to be su'o mei. (For my definition, the additional restriction doesn't change anything, because everything satisfies it so it's not really any restriction.)
Right. I need (D1') for proper definition of {N mei} for non-individuals. I was implicitly requiring it as "non-conflict selection of {su'o pa mei}", but it should have been explicit.
Non-individual referents are excluded from outer quantified sumti and singular bound variables of official Lojban. (If su'oi, ro'oi etc become official, it is not the case, though.) Possibility of quantification on non-individual referents are left only in expressions with inner quantifier. If inner quantifiers are allowed to non-individual referents, speakers who regards {lo nanba} as non-individual consider that a half of {lo pa nanba} is also {me lo nanba}. If inner quantifier is given only to individual(s), the language restrict thought of speakers so that they should consider that "a half of {lo pa nanba} is not {me lo nanba}".
That's because "me" is supposed to mean "among", not "part of". Your thought is not restricted, you just have to choose the words that better express your thoughts.
The thought of "a half of {lo pa nanba} is also {me lo nanba}" is not related to the concept {part of} as long as {lo pa nanba} is a non-individual referent related to other non-individual referents with {me}. Non-individual {lo pa nanba} as well as "a half of" {lo pa nanba} is only an ordinary vertex of an infinite tree constructed with {me}. I said "a half of" because I don't know an appropriate short _expression_ in English. Only when a unit is equalized with an individual, a half of {lo pa nanba} is regarded as {part of}. Actually there is no other method for expressing non-individual quantification; there is no choice of the words that better express the thought of non-individual with quantification.
If {M si'e} is properly defined so that M>1 is accepted, {lo PA pi broda} and {lo pi PA broda} may represent non-individual quantification, which are expanded to expressions with {M si'e}. If it is realized, the language design will be more universal.