From lojban-out@lojban.org Thu Jul 04 19:18:20 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 5 Jul 2002 02:18:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 21386 invoked from network); 5 Jul 2002 02:18:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Jul 2002 02:18:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Jul 2002 02:18:19 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17QIfr-0003rc-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 04 Jul 2002 19:18:19 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17QIff-0003rL-00; Thu, 04 Jul 2002 19:18:08 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 04 Jul 2002 19:18:05 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 17QIfc-0003rC-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 04 Jul 2002 19:18:04 -0700 Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g652MxP82489; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 21:22:59 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from fracture) Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 21:22:59 -0500 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] pro-sumti question Message-ID: <20020704212259.B82150@allusion.net> References: <97.2a030455.2a563c2a@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="1LKvkjL3sHcu1TtY" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <97.2a030455.2a563c2a@aol.com>; from pycyn@aol.com on Thu, Jul 04, 2002 at 08:02:50PM -0400 X-archive-position: 131 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 --1LKvkjL3sHcu1TtY Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jul 04, 2002 at 08:02:50PM -0400, pycyn@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 7/4/2002 3:38:56 PM Central Daylight Time,=20 > lojban-out@lojban.org writes: >=20 >=20 > > Ahh, i'm using def in '94 cmavo list, which may be in error. > >=20 > >=20 >=20 > Yup. The '98 cmavo list calls it a set also. Don't see how it matters anyway though. What cmavo liste are you looking at? > > 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. > {le te fadni} had better refer to a set or come up with a very good reaso= n=20 > why not -- and {lo te fadni} is definitely about a set. An INDIVIDUAL se= t=20 > (or several individual sets taken separately) but a set all the same. Wh= ere=20 > did this idea come from: it is an individual, set or mass of the appropri= ate=20 > sort, {le'i gunma} is about a set of masses and {le gunma} is about a mas= s.=20=20 > So, {le remei} is about a mass with two elements. Ahh it sounded like you meant "le remei" as a set/mass (which it isn't). > > I was talking about the sumti themselves -- that's the only way this wo= rks. > > See below: >=20 > As xorxes pointed out, {sumti} is used ambiguously in English: for both t= he=20 > linguistic expression and its referent. It is not ambiguous in Lojban (i= t is=20 > the expression) and I try to use it that way in English -- and take other= s as=20 > doing so as well, if possible. What DO you mean by "the sumti themselves= "?=20=20 > Your text reads like something that fluctuates over the two English meani= ngs=20 > and, when read conistently in one reading or the other, is clearly false= =20 > (use-mention ambiguity in a peculiarly Lojbanic form). I mean the sumti as opposed to the "sumti referents", which is the term i'v= e been using to refer to la'e of a sumti. > > I was going on bad definition remei. the point was the "sumti smuni" p= art. > > 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 >=20 > Well, unless the number is 1 in each case, this will not be a pair. "All= " is=20 > a lousy reading in English (and a bad translation from Latin and Greek),= =20 > "every" is better: the reference is each taken separately, not to any lum= ping=20 > (mass or set) of them -- {le} always comes down to a conjunction. There = is=20 > no separate level of the sort you mention between the individual dogs and= =20 > cats and their mass. You seem to be missing the fundamental point. The are only *two* sumti. No matter how many animals are refered to. "le remei" being "the pair" being the speaker's description (ala "le") of "the referents of a pair of previous sumti". I don't know how much clearer it can get than that, so i'm out of this thread unless ya address that instead of addressing one-of-the-many-other-things-which- the-speaker-could-describe-as-a-pair. [ snip more on ambig 'sumti' ] --=20 Jordan DeLong fracture@allusion.net --1LKvkjL3sHcu1TtY 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 iEYEARECAAYFAj0lAwMACgkQDrrilS51AZ/MywCbBMq4MAsk/CcZHTQ2AXxShM3J NYAAn3F5ImB5+L1T+RRELZgXBOgFCCQG =Y/HK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --1LKvkjL3sHcu1TtY--