From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Sat Apr 21 14:51:39 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 21 Apr 2001 21:51:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 37973 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2001 21:51:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 21 Apr 2001 21:51:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta05-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.45) by mta2 with SMTP; 21 Apr 2001 21:51:38 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.252.12.94]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010421215136.TLMX272.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 22:51:36 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Three more issues Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 22:50:39 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010420233721.00c10c60@127.0.0.1> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" Lojbab: > At 02:52 AM 04/21/2001 +0100, And Rosta wrote: > >Lojbab: > > > At 10:00 PM 04/18/2001 +0100, And Rosta wrote: > > > >John to Avital: > > > > > > I mean, is lo valsi, isn't it? > > > > > > > >I think this is an unresolved issue, whether or > > > >not we simplify the claim to " cu valsi" > > > >(or, equivalently, "The Beatles cu prenu"). The > > > >unresolved issue is whether pa valsi is a single > > > >word (in which case the claim is false) or a single > > > >amount of wordage (in which case the claim is true). > > > >I guess usage favours the former. > > > > > > A single word is the smallest unit of valsi (valsi selci). In general, > > > count nouns are counts of selci, though we have examples of mass nouns > > > that are counted otherwise (ci birje - don't ask me what a birje selci > > > would be). > > > >So are you saying that there's a rule of lojban lexical semantics > >that says that when counting broda you could the smallest units of > >broda, except in the case of certain specified lexical exceptions? > > I would not say it is a "rule". Rather, I haven't ever contemplated any > alternative. It is in fact an area fraught with conceptual-philosophical problems that I haven't ever seen this list get to grips with. I don't really want to initiate a debate now, but at least I do consider the issue unresolved. > I also don't think that there are lexical exceptions, but > rather that there are situations where we don't know what the smallest unit > of broda is. Djacu would be an exception by this criterion. > In the case of words, we generally do know. > > I think that there is a difference between "nu prenu kei" cu valsi", and > "la bitlz cu prenu". The latter would expand to 4 names linked by some form > of connective "and" (.e or joi or ce probably). The 3 quoted words are a > unit which one cannot assume can be broken down, since order is significant. Does {la bitlz} mean (a) "each of those x such that I am calling x 'bitlz'", or (b) "each member of the group that I am calling 'bitlz'", or (c) "the thing I am calling 'bitlz'"? (a) wouldn't work, because I'm not calling Ringo 'bitlz'. (c) wouldn't work, because I'm calling the group 'bitlz', and the group is not a minimal unit of person. (b) would work, but then "la bitlz cu girzu" would, undesirably, be false. --And.