[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> la and cusku di'e
>
> > > This is analogous to {rolo} and {su'olo}. "lo" means just
> > > "individual", and you need to precede it with "each" or with
> > > "some" to make sense of it. ("each of the", "at least one of the")
> > >
> > > "loi" is not "the mass", and "lo" is not "the individual"
> >
> >The difference between these two, which are indeed analogous in
> >Lojban, is that there is no independent that "lo" logically
> >could have. There is no such thing as "the individual". But there
> >is such a thing as "the mass of all", even if Lojban has no
> >ready way to express the notion
>
> Right. The meaning that "lo" could have by itself is that of
> Unique. Isn't that what "the individual" would be?
Good point.
> > > Yes. Unfortunately, CLL and Lojban literature in general is
> > > plagued with translations of {loi} as "the" mass, which is
> > > the cause of a lot of misunderstanding
> > >
> > > Other than this unfortunate mistranslation, I still think
> > > that pisu'o as the default for loi is the right one because
> > > it is very infrequently that we want to speak of the whole
> > > mass of broda, at least in its collective sense
> >
> >I, on the other hand, think that we are better off without
> >piPA. {loi} would simply be a massification or collectivization
> >of lo'i. To talk of a mass or collective of some broda, then
> >you could use lu'o su'o
>
> You may be right, piPA is rather confusing. At least it should
> be better defined. Here you are using my interpretaton of
> {lu'o su'o}, i.e. different from {lu'o ro}, right?
Yes, your interpretation of {lu'o su'o}. But any way of saying
"Ex x is a collective whose every member is..." would suffice.
--And.