From lojban-out@lojban.org Thu Jul 04 13:38:01 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 4 Jul 2002 20:38:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 56249 invoked from network); 4 Jul 2002 20:38:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Jul 2002 20:38:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Jul 2002 20:38:00 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17QDMW-0007Md-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 04 Jul 2002 13:38:00 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17QDMU-0007MM-00; Thu, 04 Jul 2002 13:37:58 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 04 Jul 2002 13:37:56 z (PDT) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17QDMR-0007MD-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 04 Jul 2002 13:37:55 -0700 Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g64KggC79409; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 15:42:42 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from fracture) Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 15:42:42 -0500 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] pro-sumti question Message-ID: <20020704154242.A79368@allusion.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="3MwIy2ne0vdjdPXF" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from pycyn@aol.com on Thu, Jul 04, 2002 at 02:22:32PM -0400 X-archive-position: 118 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Jordan DeLong From: Jordan DeLong Reply-To: fracture@allusion.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out --3MwIy2ne0vdjdPXF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jul 04, 2002 at 02:22:32PM -0400, pycyn@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 7/4/2002 10:44:43 AM Central Daylight Time,=20 > lojban-out@lojban.org writes: > > And, note the "le remei" is _not_ a mass. It's a description of > > something that could go in x1 of remei, treated individually. The > > place structure of remei is > > x1 is a set with the pair of members x2 > > so we're strictly more interested in x2. But because it's a descriptio= n > > and because the set contains those members, "le remei" gets ya the > > same result. > >=20 >=20 > Lord, I thought this got settled years ago: > mei MOI cardinal selbri convert number to cardinality selbri; x1 is t= he=20 > mass formed from set x2 whose n member(s) are x3=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 > Sets are generally useless, masses often very useful. We go with the=20 > useful. Ahh, i'm using def in '94 cmavo list, which may be in error. > And, of course, if {le remei} did refer to a set, the sentence would be=20 > nonsense, since sets can't be tired -- or much else, for that matter (why= =20 > they are useless). You can go from the fact that someone says something= =20 > literally meaningless to a claim that they intended something meaningful= =20 > somehow related to the meaningless claim, but that seems a very roundabou= t=20 > way of doing things when a straightforward way is available (and=20 > insignificantly longer). This is bullshit. "*le* remei" can't refer to a set no matter what x1 of remei is. le =3D=3D individual, le'i =3D=3D set, lei =3D=3D mass. > > Umm; I don't think it's important how many dogs or mlatu there was. Us= ing > > the remei to describe instead of reusing a previous description should = be > > enough to show that we're talking about a pair of sumti (not a pair of = dogs > > or a pair of cats or a pair of dog+cat). >=20 > Well, we're talking about **the referents** of a pair of sumti, not about= the=20 > sumti themselves: sumti don't get tired either. If there are two dogs an= d=20 > five cats and they all get tired, then we need to use (on this approach) = {le=20 > zemei}. I was talking about the sumti themselves -- that's the only way this works. See below: > > > le sumti smuni se remei > > the pair of sumti referents > > but there's no need to be that accurate as the listener could likely ge= t > > that anyway.> >=20 > If you want the pair, the presumably you leave out the {se}, otherwise --= to=20 > show that there are two, say {le re sumti smuni}. But (aside from whethe= r=20 > smuni are referents rather than senses -- as the contrast with {selsni} a= nd=20 > {snismu} appear to counter), if there are two dogs and five cats, then th= ere=20 > are either seven referents or two, both of which are masses -- and so we = are=20 > back tothe problem that one tired dog tires the whole and the original cl= aim=20 > needs {piro}. I was going on bad definition remei. the point was the "sumti smuni" part. I'm talking about a pair of things refered to by sumti. The two sumti referents mentioned were: all of somenumber of dogs all of somenumber of cats [ ... ] > > > scalability; letsay the problem was > > le gerku cu jersi le mlatu poi jersi le smacu > > now it needs to be ri .e ra .e ru. The problem gets worse if you want > > more (yes these are contrived examples, but you should get the point): > > le gerku cu jersi le mlatu poi jersi le smacu poi jersi le manti > > ri .e ra .e ru .e ruxipa .oi.oi >=20 > Yes, things get awkward as the numbers grow, and the {ri e ra} solution=20 > obviously only works so far. But the {le n-mei} does not work at all, wit= hout=20 > a lot of extra frills that don't seem reasonable to assume. I was not=20 > claiming that {ri e ro} was a general solution, only that it worked in th= e=20 > instant case as well or better than existing alternatives cited (there ma= y be=20 > an existing alternative that no one has noted yetso I am not yet to the=20 > experimental cmavo stage).=20=20 The mei solution works because we're talking about pairs of sumti, not pairs of animals. --=20 Jordan DeLong fracture@allusion.net --3MwIy2ne0vdjdPXF Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iEYEARECAAYFAj0ks0EACgkQDrrilS51AZ8GSQCfciirb0hpvbg1cTdwiMH/THcO nFMAoJYgej54G2Nkx5SNpT8u8qnoXIg1 =QtF7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --3MwIy2ne0vdjdPXF--