[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Lojbab: > At 09:46 PM 12/23/02 +1100, Nick Nicholas wrote: > >This means collectives, as indivisible n-tuples, are ontologically > >distinct from masses, and deserve their own *something* > > This implies that we indeed never abandoned the idea that le'i/lo'i are > true sets and not n-tuples (something that has been argued so many times > that I'm never sure who won any more). I believe that TLI went to the > n-tuple version of set description I don't remember the n-tuples view ever having had any advocacy in my time. Sure, some of us who thought loi/lei did collectives have thought that lo'i/le'i weren't useful, but obviously would have thought them useful if it was they and not loi/lei that did collectives. But I'd be astonished if a collectives view of lo'i/le'i turned out to be compatible with CLL. --And.