Re: [lojban] BPFK Section: Non-logical Connectives

2015-02-17 2:31 GMT+03:00 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 5:01 PM, Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:

No, because lo casnu is specifically defined as being a mass, which "joi" creates
Here I agree, casnu1 only makes sense nondistributively, so {joi} is clearly correct. If you accept that {jo'u} builds lo-groups (see my next paragraph), then {jo'u} would also be correct, but "lazily" so. va'i it's correct because it always is, not because it's really the right tool for the job in this case.

I think when discussing "joi" it's useful to bear in mind it has (at least) two different definitions (as does "loi"):

(joi1) ko'a joi ko'e = lo gunma be ko'a jo'u ko'e
(joi2) ko'a joi ko'e = ko'a jo'u ko'e + indication that when this sumti is used as the argument of a predicate, the predicate should not distribute over the referents of the sumti.

So {joi2} is for "plural" non-distributive sumti variable type, {jo'u} is for distributive and {je/.e} is for vague?

May be instead use {joi} for {joi1} only and use {ce} for {joi2}?

I don't think usage can help here. Most of it would probably be wrong usage.

However, I think that BPFK should strictly specify the meaning of {joi} or even better to specify to how to express plural type ("set") like casnu1, simxu1, how to express masses (if needed), and distributivity.

With (joi1) "ko'a joi ko'e" refers to a single entity that has two constituents. In this case there's no point in talking about distributivity since there's only one thing involved, so nothing to distribute.

I think masses ({lo gunma}) and non-distributive sumti variable type are different things and should not be reconciled in one connective.

Similarly, when we say "lo (pa) kanmi cu casnu zo joi" there's only one thing doing the discussing, no distributivity is involved.

With (joi2) there is distributivity involved. But saying that several people discuss something always requires non-distributivity, it's the meaning of "casnu", if the x1 are people they must do it together or at least in groups. It's not about being lazy, it's about knowing what "casnu" means.

For "joi1" I agree with selpa'i, I just use "lo gunma be ko'a jo'u ko'e" when I want to talk about the group. "joi2" I never use because it has several problems. Besides, there are many ways a predicate can be "non-distributive" For example if 10 people are discussing, they could be doing so in pairs, or in three groups. It's still non-distributive over people, but using "loi pa no prenu cu casnu" is not the least bit more informative than using "lo pa no prenu cu casnu". We just know from the meaning of "casnu" that they are discussing in groups of at least two each (and probably all together), but neither form is more helpful than the other.

What we should do is just give "joi" the meaning of "jo'u", which is the useful one and should be the one for the shorter form.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
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/d/optout.