[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
cu'u la xorxes.
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.
Yeah. I don't even want to give tu'oro any meaning.
>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.
D00d, if you're cool with that, then we're ok...... until I find out why John thinks piro means every fraction, which would mean that piro loi broda can mean the same as ro lo broda after all.
Thanks for the historical update. So things are indeed even worse than I thought. The funny thing is, the MEX-obsesssed incompetence which made tuples into math sets, and conflated tuples and masses, has also saved the collective by introducing the cartesian product alongside the set.
Kill kampu, and we'll go for {loi kansi'u} for collective.
I don't want the lojbanmass banished btw. I find it annoying, and it
seems to have been begotten of confusion; but an entity non-commital as
to individuation, countability, and collectivity is a handy thing to
have around. So are disambiguations, though.
We gotta get better examples of brivla to define collectives and 'minimal collectives' (or whatever the 'actual carrying' is called.) When a choir sings, the individuals sing; no emergence. When the team carries, some bozos are allowed to supervise; so you can fudge the membership, as has been a long-running tradition in the Lojban justification of the lojbanmass.
So hang bevri, the gismu is laftygau. laftygau is your actual carrying. The blind dude's steerer is irrelevant to it.
Clearly what emerges and what doesn't depends on the brivla. But just as clearly, there are brivla where (a) there is emergence --- the collective claim is not true of the individuals; and (b) where the membership of the collective is not fuzzy: there is a minimum collective of which the claim is true. bevri with supervisors illustrates (a) but not (b), since carrying is kinda vague as an activity. laftygau does have a clearly defined tuple as an agent. So does making a kid.
>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.
If the CLL lo'e is incompatible with Unique (and noone has argued to me it isn't), then fundamentalism sends Unique off somewhere else.
>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.
As I said, the "quantification ranges over this planet" principle is a Gricean default, not a requirement. You can wish for a gold toilet -- it's just pointless. If someone kills all the doctors, you can still want or seek a doctor, but it's pointless to say it. Needing is not so pointless, I admit. But if you know the quantification isn't going to be met on this planet, then we might as well go straight to mi nitcu leka ce'u mikce
[...]>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.
Come come, Jorge. That's nitcu lo mikce in the transparent reading. A legitimate model-theoretical interpretation of the sentence will plug in a value ahead of time.
Since you're Jorge, though, I'm obviously missing something here. How is nitcu lo mikce not de re?
**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** * Dr Nick Nicholas, French & Italian, University of Melbourne, Australia *
nickn@hidden.email http://www.opoudjis.net
* "Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity of locutional rendering, the
*
circumscriptional appelations are excised." --- W. Mann & S. Thompson,* _Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organisation_, 1987. * **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****