[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
I am clumsily attempting to demonstrate that collective != piroloiMore generally, I am trying to derive collective (and later on, substance) from lojbanmass, because in Standard Lojban, lojbanmass is the primitive.
If this is hopeless, and it is agreed that collective is a separate primitive, then ipso facto, gadri. Because we've all been saying collectives are a subset of lojbanmass, I think it not hopeless.
I don't think this last bit is true in general. The collective says that the bridi is true of the whole bunch. It doesn't say anything about whether it is true of the members of the bunch.
This is where I keep going wrong. If it true of the whole bunch and can be true of individuals within the bunch ("the duet sings... actually right now it's just Fred"), then do we have classic lojbanmass, and joi? And if it's true of the whole bunch and no individuals within it ("together", classic sense of piano carrying), we have one kind of collective and one kind of lojbanmass, right?
So I'm trying to say that, in all 3 scenarios, loi prenrbriticybuldogo do it, but by playing with the quantification, we can extract an individual, a collective, and eventually a substance intepretation.
And I leave with my other Christmas Mass idea: ro pa lu'a piro loi broda = collective? ro za'u lu'a piro loi broda = individual?As in, take the entire Lojbanmass, convert it into an individual, and if a single individual containing the Lojbanmass does it, you have a collective; but if you don't, and have to extract several individuals out of it, you have an individual plural?
But what about the two groups of three... aaaargh... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Nick Nicholas; University of Melbourne, http://www.opoudjis.net nickn@hidden.email Dept. of French & Italian Studies No saves, Antonyo, lo ka es morirse una lingua. Es komo kedarse soliko en el silensyo kada diya ke el Dyo da --- Marcel Cohen, 1985 (Judezmo)