Subject: Re: [lojban] RE: Sets etc.

From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 23:04:51 -0500

At 08:20 AM 03/03/2000 -0800, Jorge Llambias wrote:
>la and cusku di'e
> >I also forget whether there's a significant difference between pi ro loi
> >and pi su'o loi. And if so, is pc failing to take it into account? Jorge?
>
>I'm not sure pc went into it at all. There is definitely
>a significant difference in my opinion. {pisu'o loi} is the
>default. For example:
>
> mi gairgau loi karda le bitmu
> I cover the wall with cards.
>
>I have to use a mass because it is certainly not the case
>that each of the cards covers the wall. But I am not
>saying that I cover the wall with the complete mass of
>cards in existence. I have no contact with most of those
>cards, so I could hardly use them for anything.

Maybe And (pr pc) can fill in with his knowledge. Would a Trobriander 
consider that Mr. Card covers the wall, or several instances of Mr. 
Card? Alternatively, if he sees two rabbits, does his myopic singularizer 
say that he is seeing "Mr. Rabbit" or 2 instances of Mr. Rabbit?

My own understanding based on some long-ago prior discussion, is that any 
number of rabbits would still be seen as "Mr. Rabbit.", a myopic 
singular. This then justifies the "pisu'o" quantifier and the generalized 
mass concept in that any portion (pisu'o loi broda) of the mass that 
manifests the linguistically relevant properties of broda is a myopic 
singular instance of Mr. Broda.

> >I inferred from Jorge's recent description that Loglan lo is used for
> >Mr Rabbit; what I in bygone times called a 'myopic singularizer'.
>
>Yes, gavagai, that is the main use of Loglan lo
>as far as I can tell.

And Lojban loi as well; but maybe I am seeing the world of mass usage 
through different eyes than others.

> >The conceptual basis for the myopic singularizer is that a category is
> >viewed as an individual, and members of the category are merely aspects
> >of the individual.
>
>Yes, I agree. This plays havoc with quantifiers though, which
>rely precisely on viewing each member as distinct.

Except that "loi" tells us NOT to treat the "members" as distinct, but 
rather as merely arbitrary manifestations of the mass. How many members 
are there in "loi djacu"? It is a meaningless question for a mass; hence 
an indefinite answer: "ro" that is (more or less always) elided since it 
conveys no information.

lojbab
----
lojbab [email-masked]
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org (newly updated!)