[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 01:09:15PM +1100, Nick Nicholas wrote:
> cu'u la djordan.
> >On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 02:20:59AM +1100, Nick Nicholas wrote:
> >> My contention that {mei} means 'collective' should be easily proven by
> >> usage, btw.
> >>
> >> Does anyone ever use {remei} when {pamei} would also be true? If so,
> >> mass. If not, collective.
> >Yes. If "pamei" is true, you can always take another X and say
> >"remei", "cimei", etc.
>
> Please expand. So you're saying that, in scenario B --- where John
> lifts the piano and James doesn't,
I didn't read scenario B, from lack of time for jboske stuff.
> lo pamei be lo'i nanmu cu bevri le pipno
> lo remei be lo'i nanmu cu bevri le pipno
If the first one is true, the next one follows.
> or? Because, if a twosome is a lojbanmass, then everything sayable of
> the onesome is sayable of the twosome. If John is blond and James is
> brunet, then the mass {John, James} is blond, and is brunet.
Yes, assuming the pisu'o default quantifier.
piro of the mass requires each member. But "piro" with masses is
pretty useless (you'd usually just use individuals if you wanted
that).
> >> Does anyone ever use {remei} when {pisu'omei} would also be true? If
> >> so, substance. If not, collective.
> >I'm not sure what pisu'omei means.
>
> A fraction of a onesome. John's severed limb. CLL kinda sorta blocks
> this interpretation of lojbanmass, at least sometimes.
I've never actually seen this in usage, and I'm not sure if it means
what you're saying. I'd say "lu'o la djan." can be just the arm,
even though the mass is logically a onesome.
> >> And that's built in to our treatment of numbers anyway, right? Because
> >> we've passed law that {re} is always {su'ore}.
>
> >re is never su'ore. The reason that we can say "remei" if "pamei"
> >is also true has nothign to do with numbers, it has to do with how
> >lojbanmasses work.
>
> True, that is intrinsic to lojbanmass. I wish to suggest that (a)
> what's true of lojbanmass (which I think of as substance, but
> whatever) is not true of collective; (b) that we've told people stuff
> about collectives which is actually true of lojbanmasses; (c) that
> collectives deserve their own unambiguous way of expression; (d) that
> as much as possible, it should be using existing stuff in the
> language.
>
> As you have pointed out (and I'm a dolt for not realising it myself),
> the collective is done in Lojban by {jo'u}. All I'm saying is, if da
> .e de make up individuals, and da joi de make up masses, then da jo'u
> de make up a collective. And if individuals get the gadri lo, and
> masses get the gadri loi, then collectives should get something. And
> would give them lu'oi; he may yet get it, but I think it less
> disruptive if they get lo romei be lo'i.
This makes sense. If collectives are the same as jo'u then I have no
problem with having a way to say it with gadri. The thing is, I think
we already have it:
A joi B == [pisu'o] lu'o A .e B
A jo'u B == piro lu'o A .e B
It sounds to me like "piro" is your "collectives". If so, there's
no need for any changes (and there's probably no need for changes
anyway).
> Jordan, I'm going to badger you in this, but I feel I must. I place
> before you four scenarios: John not James, John and James separately,
> John and James together, pieces of John and James. Here they are
> again. Please tell me if you think your understanding of lojbanmasses
> and gadri is violated in what follows. If you insist that mei is a
> lojbanmass and not a collective, please tell me how to disambiguate
> the collective from the lojbanmass.
>
> (I reiterate that, if remei is mass and not collective, it cannot
> work: if {lo remna remei} is a lojbanmass, it is true even if bits of
> John and bits of James do the lifting, or at the least if John and
> not James do it. So in the following, {lo remei be lo'i remna} must
> behave exactly like {lei re remna}, if {remei} is a mass. If you say
> it is, then I concede, {remei} is mass to you, and there is no
> disambiguation. If you accept my usage of {remei} below, as you hint
> by using {remei} as a collective disambiguation, then I deem you to
> be using {remei} as a collective, and we can haggle on the name.)
>
> A: John not James
>
> le re nanmu na bevri
> lei re nanmu ja'a bevri
And also "lei re nanmu naku bevri". (But "lei re nanmu cu na bevri"
is false).
> le remei be lo'i nanmu na bevri
This is true, but "le remei be lo'i nanmu cu bevri" is true also.
> naku ge la djan. gi la djeimyz. bevri
tugni
> la djan. joi la djeumyz. ja'a bevri
Yes, but once again, "la djan. joi la djeimez. naku bevri" also.
> la djan jo'u la djeimyz. na bevri
tugni
> B: John and James separately
>
> le re nanmu ja'a bevri
> lei re nanmu ja'a bevri
tugni
> le remei be lo'i nanmu na bevri
Disagree. "le remei be lo'i nanmu cu bevri".
> ge la djan. gi la djeimyz. bevri
> la djan. joi la djeumyz. ja'a bevri
tugni
> la djan jo'u la djeimyz. na bevri
Disagree again.
> C: John and James together
>
> le re nanmu na bevri
> lei re nanmu ja'a bevri
> le remei be lo'i nanmu ja'a bevri
> naku ge la djan. gi la djeimyz bevri
> la djan. joi la djeumyz. ja'a bevri
> la djan jo'u la djeimyz. ja'a bevri
tugni
> D: John's and James' severed legs
>
> le re nanmu na bevri
Debatable. But probably agree.
> lei re nanmu ja'a bevri
tugni
> le remei be lo'i nanmu na bevri
Disagree.
> naku ge la djan. gi la djeimyz bevri
> la djan. joi la djeumyz. ja'a bevri
tugni
> la djan jo'u la djeimyz. na bevri
Disagree.
> Meta-note: it's been a long week in jboskistan: I started recoiling
> in horror at And saying loi was not a mass, and doubly so at Jorge
> bringing up that you can't marry the Beatles. Wierdly enough, now I
> agree with them.
I disagree with them. I think (lojbanmass: the beatles) speni yoko
is true. Of course, "piro (lojbanmass: the beatles)" would be
false, and I think you should keep in mind that xorxes/And are
confused about the default outer quantifiers for the mass gadri.
> Current take: you marry the mass and not the group. You marry into
> Beatledom: {do speni lai bitlz.}. You marry The Beatles: {do speni
> lu'oi la'i bitlz.}/{do speni le romei be la'i bitlz.}
Side note: Each member is not called "the beatles". "The beatles"
is the name of a mass. So "la bitlz." and not "lai bitlz."
> There's still a mess in groups with authority to do things, which we
> had best sidestep. (And's explicitly said so already.) Paul McCartney
> writes a solo album: {lai bitlz. finti lo selsanga}. Paul writes an
> album for the Beatles: {le romei be la'i bitlz. finti}. Because, I
> suppose, the consent of all group members was required to allow "The
> Beatles" to be identified with the song.
>
> This is where I think Nora was heading with talk of piano carriers
> and piano carrying supervisor. But I think this is humongously
> distinct from masses, because masses are more like "this much of
> humanity lifted the piano" than "the team lifted the piano." I can
> see cases where they draw close to each other, but I still think
> they're distinct.
>
> Erk. That'll do for today.
Indeed.
mu'o
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@hidden.email
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
binfGTGyAksXi.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped