From lojbab@lojban.org Sat Mar 04 11:49:44 2000 Received: (qmail 11200 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2000 19:49:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 4 Mar 2000 19:49:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy.cais.net) (199.0.216.101) by mta2.onelist.org with SMTP; 4 Mar 2000 19:49:59 -0000 Received: from bob (dynamic94.cl7.cais.net [205.177.20.94]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA00674 for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 14:49:12 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000304143824.00b6fcc0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: vir1036/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 14:49:01 -0500 To: lojban@onelist.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Use and abuse of sets In-Reply-To: <20000304192945.78010.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-eGroups-From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 11:29 AM 03/04/2000 -0800, Jorge Llambias wrote: >le se xadni be la lojbab cusku di'e zo'o > >How about pimu le ci djacu? > >I don't know, do you? Do we even have a convention for this? >Half of each? Nope, the outer quantifier is selection from the inner quantifier; no special rule for a fractional quantifier. So this is half of one water. > >pimu le'i ci djacu is clear because we can't > >talk of half-members of sets. > >Half a set is clear? Especially a set with an odd >number of members? What is it? It is not another >set, I hope. OK, I should have used an even numbered set. In such a case it is clear. I agree that half is undefined for odd integer sets. > >Fine, and to the extent that you are considered an authority based on your > >extensive usage, that could be seen as good or bad (Welcome to the dilemma > >of Lojban Central, Jorge! Glad you could join us %^) > >No dilemma for me! I don't expect anyone to take my words >based on authority, Sorry, but And has already piped up and said that he takes your pronouncements as authority based on your presumed level of skill. You're stuck now %^) > I sure hope they will be persuaded or >fail to be persuaded by my arguments, That assumes that they understand them %^) > and not be influenced >by any perceived authority that I certainly don't have. >I much rather have my views challenged so that I can modify >them when errors or inconsistencies are pointed out. >And I do often change them, just compare what I'm saying >now to what I said two or three years ago. I think I'll pass. >I don't take what you say as authoritative, so why >should I expect what I say to be taken as such? :) Because most of Lojbanistan seems to look for authority, or there never would have been such a concept as "Lojban Central". > >I guess I prefer the usage without the arguments unless someone fails to > >understand (which of course means that someone has to be trying to > >understand, which remains a problem with much Lojban writing today). > >And yet you spend much more time on the arguments than on the >usage. That leaves the field open to you for usage, doesn't it? I wish I had time to be more than a spectator, but especially when we get days like the last two, I despair this will ever happen. lojbab ---- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org 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!)