From pycyn@aol.com Thu May 31 18:22:29 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 1 Jun 2001 01:22:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 84183 invoked from network); 1 Jun 2001 01:22:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Jun 2001 01:22:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r02.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.98) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Jun 2001 01:22:28 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.b0.154f6d63 (3757) for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 21:22:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 21:22:23 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] (no subject) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_b0.154f6d63.2848484f_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_b0.154f6d63.2848484f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/31/2001 6:30:50 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > I'm not quite sure what my suggestions are yet, I'm just exploring > for the moment. But it does seem useful to distinguish for example > . Well, as noted, I am not too sure about the general usefulness of any sets at all, but given there are some to be spoken of, we would want to be able to do both of these. <>I'm >not sure, by the way, that {lu'i ro loi broda} is well-formed: It is grammatical. We have to decide whether we want to give it any meaning or not.> OK, so we can put a non-fractional quantifier in front of {loi}, with as yet undefined sense. The first sounds plausible and maybe useful, we probably won't stick with the second. The third sounds like trouble I suppose you mean "don't NOW have any way" since you were just proposing a way above. We pretty certainly don't have one now and I can imagine wanting one (without going through {gunma}), except that I want to insist that masses aren't things but rather that mass descriptions are ways of talking about things (set descriptions, too, for that matter) As noted, I would like to see those be just the massification of {so'i lo broda}, that is, not an unspecified mass of many broda but a mass of many unspecifed broda. I,m not sure I can make this work, what with quantifiers and all. --part1_b0.154f6d63.2848484f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/31/2001 6:30:50 PM Central Daylight Time,
jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:



I'm not quite sure what my suggestions are yet, I'm just exploring
for the moment. But it does seem useful to distinguish for example
{lu'i ci lo mlatu}, a set of three cats, from the set of all cats


.

Well, as noted, I am not too sure about the general usefulness of any sets at
all, but given there are some to be spoken of, we would want to be able to do
both of  these.

<>I'm
>not sure, by the way, that {lu'i ro loi broda} is well-formed:

It is grammatical. We have to decide whether we want to give it
any meaning or not.>

OK, so we can put a non-fractional quantifier in front of {loi}, with as yet
undefined sense.

<One possibility is for {ro loi broda} to mean "each mass of broda".
Another possibility is that it is meaningless, another that it means
"the one mass of all broda", same as {piro loi broda}.>

The first sounds plausible and maybe useful, we probably won't stick with the
second.  The third sounds like trouble

<No doubt about lu'i ro lo broda = lo'i broda. If lu'i piro
loi broda is also that, we don't have a way of talking of sets
whose members are masses. Not that it would be a problem for me
in any case. I only need {lu'a} and {lu'o} an these don't have
the problems that sets have.>

I suppose you mean "don't NOW have any way" since you were just proposing a
way above.  We pretty certainly don't have one now and I can imagine wanting
one (without going through {gunma}), except that I want to insist that masses
aren't things but rather that mass descriptions are ways of talking about
things (set descriptions, too, for that matter)

<It seems useful to distinguish {lu'o so'i lo broda}, a mass of
many broda, from {lu'o so'u lo broda}, a mass of a few broda,
and so on.>
As noted, I would like to see those be just the massification of {so'i lo
broda}, that is, not an unspecified mass of many broda but a mass of many
unspecifed broda.  I,m not sure I can make this work, what with quantifiers
and all.



--part1_b0.154f6d63.2848484f_boundary--