Subject: Re: [lojban] pro-sumti question

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 12:20:29 EDT

In a message dated 7/5/2002 3:00:58 AM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> >The mei solution works because we're talking about pairs of >sumti,
> >not pairs of animals.
> 
> That, in my opinion, is precisely why the solution doesn't work : we want a
> sumti which says "the referents of my last pair of sumti". Either, in
> context, we have pa gerku and pa mlatu in which case le remei refers to 
> both
> of them or we just have le gerku and le mlatu (of which there could be any
> number), in which case le remei would refer to two sumti. We want the
> referents of those two sumti, so {la'e le remei cu tatpi} works with any
> {[gadri] broda cu brode [gadri] brodu}.
> 
I disagree with the "in which case le remei would refer to two sumti". This 
is not the default position and, of course, makes no sense in the context 
(expressions don't get tired). Adding {la'e} only makes sense if what is 
described next is a sign of some sort; {le remei} might be a sign, but most 
likely is not -- it could be a dog and a cat, for current example.

<I can't now work out what {le remei} actually means. How would it differ
from {lei remei}? Could anyone share their views on which of these make
sense and what they mean?

le remei
le se remei
lei remei
lei se remei>

le remei = the massification(s) of some pair of things I have in mind (refers 
to mass(es) of things)
le se remei = the set(s) of two things I have in mind as massified (refers to 
two membered sets)
lei remei = the mass of pair masses I have in mind (refers to a mass of 
masses of things -- which I think collapses to a mass of things)
lei se remai = the masses of two-sets I have in mind as massified. (refers to 
a mass of sets, which does not collapse).

<It is, however likely that {lu'o le gerku .e le mlatu cu tatpi} doesn't mean
that all of them are tired. Otherwise an officer telling his superior "lei
nanmu cu tatpi" would not be telling the truth.>

I take this as another way of saying that "tired" spreads over masses from 
individuals in some special way. How?

<I think this is one place where the book is right in the wrong way. The
implicit quantifiers on lei don't work as they should. A mass, considered as
a mass, is either tired or isn't (otherwise masses are as useful as sets).
We can't have a situation where {lei nanmu cu tatpi .ije naku lei nanmu cu
tatpi} is true.>

See comments elsewhere to xorxes treatment of this. Tautologies don't help 
clarify issues.

<- How do we refer to the referents of the sumtis of the last sentence? (I
think some sort of prosumti should be experimented with)

- How do we use {remei} to refer to {le gerku .e le mlatu} in the context
{.i pa gerku .i pa mlatu .i le gerku cu jersi le mlatu}>

I think the answer to the second question is just "we can't with any 
reasonable assurance of success." If I am wrong on that, then this question 
reduces to the first one, with viable candidate.

<- What do we do about these stupid-mass-things (pe'i la djan cowan po'o ka'e
ciksi). It makes no sense to be able to say {loi cmacu cu crinu} because I
decided that dying my own hair green wasn't enough.>

I think this is pretty well in hand. A better case would be "What is the way 
that the tiredness of individual brodas affects the tiredness of loi broda?" 
That is claimed to be special but not yet explained: neither the "all" nor 
the "only some" explanation seems right to some people.