[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la nitcion cusku di'e
A substance is loi tu'o broda Individuals, collectives, and substances of collectives are all loi tu'o ro broda
You meant {loi ro broda}, right? {tu'oro} is a beast that I think
we have never considered yet.
I think the collective vs. substance of collective conflation is bogus, because a substance of collective can *still* be phrased as loi tu'o broda; and such second step abstractions are pragmatically more like loi tu'o loi ro broda, if you're going to put quantifiers in there. (Yes, that's grammatical.)
That would be good. Then {loi ro broda} could be reserved
exclusively for collective.
I note in passing that the gismu definitions do treat sets as n-tuples, just as Bob's addled recollection leads me to believe. (No, I don't like what he did. Because I'm stuck trying to clear up the mess. And I don't give a fuck if the mess is originally James Brown's.) Why else use sets in the gismu definitions where he did?
I don't think the mess is JCB's. JCB always used "set" for
collectives, and when the logicians tried to restrict "set"
to mathematical sets he vetoed them. In Loglan it is "leu"
(called "set") that carry the log, and as far as I know
it has always been and remained so.
The problem came when Lojban instituted the new "mathematical
set" category, and then displaced the collective function to
"mass". The collective function, being much more frequent than
the substance function, eventually came to be the canon for
{lei}, and the description of "mass" became the messy conflated
thing.
I may be getting this wrong, as I was not there when it happened,
but that is the impression I get from reading Loglan and Lojban
historical material.
Bob says the gismu for collectives might be kampu, The x2 of kampu is... a set! Ergo, Bob thinks of sets as collectives/tuples. Thanks a bunch.
And x1 of kampu is a property, so it is not clear what it has to do with collectives. From the definition I would have guessed that x1 is a property that each member has, rather than an emergent property of the group as a whole.
2. lo'e The candidate senses are: Statistical (e.g. mode), Prototype (mental definition), and Unique. The founders (addled once more) seem to have preferred Prototype (which matches stereotype), I've retracted Statistical, and And has retracted Unique (apparently), so this is resolved.
For what it's worth, I still want Unique for lo'e. I'd have to see some extensive use examples of prototype lo'e to convince me that it is worth having. I have not felt any need for it in my usage experience.
4. Intensional article
The problem arises with imagination preds, although it laps at the
others as well. If the quantification is limited to this world (so
that, for all {x|broda(x)}, the Any-x can be paraphrased as x1 .a x2 .a
x3... , just as ro lo broda can be paraphrased as x1 .e x2 .e x3... and
piro loi broda as x1 joi x2 joi x3... --- and hopefully, piro lu'oi
broda as x1 jo'u x2 jo'u x3...),
But {x1 .a x2 .a x3...} is just {lo broda}.
then wanting a doctor can be interpreted as wanting one of the 5 zillion doctors practicing today on this planet. Same with needing. And seeking \x:doctor(x) can range over the set of all doctors practicing today on the planet.
If I need a doctor, and every one of the zillion doctors practicing today on this planet were to die, or decided to retire from practice, then the meaning of "I need a doctor" would not change. It is a statement that uses only the intension of "doctor" and not the circumstantial instantiations on this planet today. [...]
The Lojbanmass will do for wanting/needing/seeking, at a pinch, because
it includes in its denotation the Any-x: mi nitcu loi mikce is true of
{x1 .a x2 .a x3...}.
That's {mi nitcu lo mikce}. If it is true for at least one
of x1, x2, x3, ..., then it is true. But it has to be true
for at least one of them, there has to be at least one
doctor such that I need that doctor.
Good summary of the situation!
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 3 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU=
http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_addphotos_3mf