Le mardi 25 février 2014 07:59:04 UTC+9, xorxes a écrit :
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 9:59 AM, guskant
<gusni...@gmail.com> wrote:
You give {su'o pa mei} to all referents of a universe of discourse,
while I give {su'o pa mei} to certain members of it, not to all.
Right, which to me sounds like you want some things in the universe of discourse that don't count as "somethings".
It is for the purpose of giving expressions with {N mei} and {lo N broda} to non-individual referents.
Even if speakers regard {lo nanba} as non-individual, they may want to use {N mei} to a particular referent of {lo nanba}, because the expressions of {N mei} and {lo N nanba} are useful for giving a mapping from an order of quantity into transitivity of {me}. These expressions facilitate comparison of quantity between {ko'a me lo nanba} and {ko'e me lo nanba} without using other unit than what is defined by speakers.
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. Mapping from {N mei} into {me} of non-individual referents is only non-surjective, and (D1) with (D2) reflects transitivity of {me}. {me}-relation holds even if {N mei}-relation is applied.
If {P si'e} were allowed for P>1, {si'e} would have been better than {me} for non-individual referents.
(I have once suggested an interpretation of {P si'e} for other than P<=1, though nobody agreed: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/6LRA8XntyGc/6MFRVIfGDMMJ .)
If it is not allowed, then {si'e} is not convenient for counting up.
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.
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
...
Speakers may not want change the number applied to {ko'a} in such a way.
Using {mei}, speakers can fix a number to the same referent even when 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.
(D1-7) is only a sample for discussion. Speakers arbitrarily select referents to be {su'o pa mei}, not only {ko'a}.
In other words, (D1-7) gives a subjective unit to non-individual referents. If you don't call it definition, you may exclude it from a set of definitions on {N mei}. In any case, the meaning of {su'o pa mei} is entrusted to speakers, and it is not necessarily {ro'oi da su'o pa mei}.
Defining {su'o pa mei} involves giving a unit to a set of referents that are related with transitivity of {me}. I want to let speakers have the right to define a unit.
"Defining a unit" sounds a lot to me like defining what counts as one, what the individuals are in our discourse.
Since what counts as an individual is context-dependent anyway, why add a second layer? Why have first-class things (which count) and second-class things (which don't count)?
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}".