[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Nick:
> Jorge, we part company. Inevitably
>
> > I gave the cube as an example of something that is a Nick-substance
> > but does not map to what I understand as Substance. To me, a solid
> > cube is as much a countable individual as anything. The set of all
> > solid cubes has aleph-one cardinality, but that is not what
> > determines what a substance is
>
> There's a conflation, deep down inside, I have to clarify
which is very helpful.
> The ontological types are: atom, substance, group
and are defined by the te memzilfendi.
However, your 'substance -> stuff' = what I would call 'bit of stuff'.
> The counting types are: individual, collective, and... substance
>
> A glass of water is an individual of substance
>
> So maybe I should say the ontological types are atom, stuff, group, and
> the counting types are individual, substance, collective
>
> A cube, just like a glass of water, is a countable individual. But it
> is infinitesimally subdividable. So it is a countable individual of
> stuff (what I was calling individual of substance.)
Roger.
So where you and I differ is with the counting types, which IMO are these:
A. you can start to count them and you can stop counting at su'eci'ino
B. you can start to count them and can't stop until ci'ipa
C. you can't even start counting (but {da poi broda} still holds)
Individual is A. Bit of Substance is B. Substance is C. Most noematic
things are Substance/C.
Collective (as I understand it) is not a special counting type.
Collectives can be either A or C. Member-of-Collective is A or
B.
> > I used to understand {piro} as "the largest possible bit" = "the
> > whole" too, but And persuaded me that "every bit" makes more sense,
> > given no default quantifiers for "the whole". It seemed that
> > Lojbab too was in favour of the "every bit" interpretation
>
> Then I defy you all. And I have fundament behind me: {piro} is "the
> whole", as explicitly set out in p. 130 of CLL. I shall not surrender
> it.
Without wanting to be unduly negative, (a) "the whole" can mean
"every bit" in English, (b) taking it to mean something other
than "every bit" simply does not square with it being a fraction
and a quantifier, (c) if it doesn't mean "every bit" then there
is no difference between "the whole of X" and just "X".
> Especially not when I've used it to finally reconcile with
> collectives and emergence
Ideally the reconciliation would be one that is based on an
internally consistent system rather than one that applies
idiomatic meaning to constructions that could have had a
sensical compositional meaning.
> > >A collective of all humanity is piro loi ji'i6ki'oki'oki'o remna, ok?
> >
> > Not according to my current understanding of {piro}. In both
> > SL and XS4, the collective would just be {loi ji'i6ki'oki'oki'o remna}
> > In SL, if you add {piro} then you have "each bit of the collective
> > of 6G humans", i.e. just "each human" in this case
>
> With respect, Jorge, that's bullshit. p. 130 of CLL says "the whole".
> CLL makes explicit that collectives are always fractionally
> quantifiable. And collectives are utterly analogous to sets (we
> considered conflating them, and sometimes the gi'uste does); p. 131
> explicitly says that pimu lo'i remna is a set. So lojbanmass is closed
> under fractional quantification, just like individuals are closed under
> natural number quantification
Without going into a detailed response at this stage, you must
consider what strategy to take when what the CLL says makes sense
only as a stipulation of idiomatic meaning that overrides sensical
compositional meaning.
When xorxes talks about his understanding of piro, he is talking
about his understanding of what it would mean if CLL stipulations
didn't substitute an idiomatic meaning for a compositional meaning.
Here we are running up against exactly the problems I foresaw. I
thought you could create a sensible gadri system ab initio, but
not one that would be conformant with CLL.
> Don't tell me piro loi remna has anything to do with "each human" in
> SL. When piro is only ever defined in SL as "the whole of"
That's not what he's saying. Xorxes is saying that IF Lojban
worked rationally (i.e. compositionally rather than idiomatically)
then that is what it would mean.
> What you think and what you prefer to have piro be does not determine
> what piro is in SL, and therefore what an SL-compatible solution should
> contain
Sure, but me and xorxes have been enticed into these exchanges by
the appearance of you trying to create a rational system. If you
say "Sorry -- CLL makes a balls-up here, but it's got to stay",
then I'd probably be better off just backing off and leaving it
to you to do on your own.
I mean, I can accept that SL-conformity means not reallocating
cmavo meanings willynilly. So, for example, I don't expect
BF to grant me and xorxes {lo} = "Mr". But I had dared to hope,
once you began, that we were working with a gadri system that
was compositional.
> > >pimu loi vo prenrbitlzi (keeping them intact --- half the Beatles is
> > >people, not people goo) is a subgroup, of cardinality 4*3 = 12: there
> > >are 12 ways you can form a duo out of the four members. But the inner
> > >quantifier isn't counting Beatles. It's counting atomic bits of
> > >Beatles, which you're using to form the subgroup. And the outer
> > >quantifier isn't counting portions. It's describing size of portion
> >
> > In SL (according to the Lojbab/And/Jorge recent understanding)
> > {pimu loi vo prenrbitlzi} is not a collective of two bits, but
> > two bits out of the four. You'd need {loi pimu loi vo prenrbitlzi}
> > to get the collective reading
>
> Then you're all counter p. 130-131 of CLL and the utterly analogous
> treatment of sets, and therefore in deviation from the fundament. How
> you talked Bob into this, I have no idea, and this confirms to me that
> Bob gets easily confused. :-) Thread header, please?
Ha. Bob talked me into it and I talked xorxes into it!!
Sorry -- I can't remember which messages this was in. It wasn't
a single thread. But we've been talking one another in and out
of two coherent positions:
I. piro != every bit, & is equivalent to the absence of quantification,
so should always be the default
II. piro = every bit, is not equivalent to the absence of quantification,
and should not be a default
Currently we favour II, because it is far more consistent with
compositionality.
> > >... Ergo, if it is legitimate to have the inner quantifier of a
> > >collective to be the count of members of the collective (loi vo
> > >prenrbitlzi), it is legitimate for the inner quantifier of a substance
> > >to be the count of bits of the substance (loi ci'ipa djacu)
> >
> > It is legitimate to do that. I just wouldn't call it a substance
> > It is a collective of bits of water
>
> I define a substance as an infinitesimal collective, then. I can deal
> with that. This may end up meaning that while there are three
> ontological types --- atom, stuff, group --- there are only two
> counting types: individual... and mass
That's an improvement. But what is the counting type of the set
{Nick, And, Xorxes}? Neither individual nor mass, IMO.
--And.