[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
>By the by, I deem that lu'a working on individuals gives you the
>individuals
>back; lu'a working on collectives and sets gives you any member of the
>collective/set (so the lu'i in the KS1 should be replaced by lu'a.)
The wording could be problematic. Collectives and sets are
individuals, so {lu'a} would be ambiguos for some individuals. Is
lu'a <set> the individual set, or a member of the set? You may
prefer to give a rule like: "lu'a ko'a is a member of ko'a if ko'a
has members, otherwise it is ko'a itself". The last bit is
justifiable because an individual can be thought of as a collective
of one member.
I accept that. Maybe I should have spoken of atoms and groups instead of individuals and collectives.
>Similarly, lu'i of individuals gives the set of individuals; lu'i of a set>gives a set>of sets. So lu'i .abu .e by (lu'i re broda} = {a, b}; lu'i .abu ce by (lu'i>le'i re broda) >= { {a,b} }. Excellent! That's the way I understand it.
I think I finally got to see the point of why you did. I was worried that KS1 was contravening your lu'i --- which then again was contravening Bob's. But it turns out I was confused, and actually intended lu'a.
lo bende is a collective. So there's no point in lu'a lo bende meaning the all-of individual: that's already lo bende. So yes, lu'a lo bende is a member of the band.
>Fractional>quantifiers specify the size of the portion. They don't say anything about>how>many such portions are possible (an inner quantifier), nor how many such>portions you're actually talking about (because, uh, you don't care, >because >it's a Unique.) BTW, that's {lo pimu djacu} in XS4.
With the proviso that in extensional contexts, it's not a Unique, it's a single one of the possible portions of that size. If you want half the apple, you want any half of the apple. If you eat half the apple, you eat a particular half of the apple. So in fact pimu lo plise is ambiguous between de re (pa lo xadba) and de dicto (tu'o lo xadba).
And we disambiguate it by real quantification: pa xadba vs. tu'o xabda, pa pimumei vs. tu'o pimumei. Since anything true of an avatar is true of the Kind, we can convenionally say that pimu loi plise is a Kind of halfhood. Or we can admit to a distinction between intensional and extensional contexts that is not signalled by the prenex. Hm. pimu isn't really a quantifier; but what if we treated its existential scope as if it was, in line with our propositionalism?
I want a particular half an apple: pimu da poi plise zo'u: mi djica da = mi djica pimu lo plise
I want any half an apple: mi djica lenu pimu da zo'u: da co'e = mi djica tu'a pimu lo pliseI eat half an apple: pimu da poi plise zo'u: mi citka da = mi citka pimu lo plise
I'm sorry I keep sommersaulting like this.
Should there be a difference in the way we do "Unique human", "Unique couple of humans" and "Unique half a human".
Prima facie, no. With requisite provisos, like "half a human" forces a shift to People-Goo (stuff) and from individual to substance (= uncountable collective; I'm about to drop the figleaf and just say "Mass".)
If I understand
correctly, you want {pimu loi djacu} to be equivalent to
the last one. What, if anything, would you have {pa loi djacu}
and {re loi djacu} be?
Didn't I make that a Wierd Quantification? Let's see. If broda is an atomic predicate, ro loi = ro lo girzu befi lu'aBut that's ambiguous: is ro loi ci lo broda all trios, or all trios, duos, and monos? We need piro in there after all:
ro lo piro loi ro lo pisu'o loi(And that's Wierd Quantification 1, but applied to atomic collectives, not substances.)
So you're saying whether, since the fractional quantifier of a loi is bogus (possibly unique), is not the natural quantifier of a loi also potentially bogus, and potentially unique.
i think the answer is no; the bogosity inheres in the fractional quantifier, not in the choice of lojbanmass vs individual. Because
(a) Fractional + Individual = Bogus quantification: {pi mu lo plise} is also potentially a Unique Half. (I want half an apple = I want any half of an apple.) (Yes, ultimately pimulo = pimuloi goo, but still.)
(b) Natural Number + Collective = Normal quantification. I am ultimately using re loi to count collectives; so re loi vo lo plise is not inherently more intensional than re lo plise vomei. plise vomoi has cisfinite cardinality, so is as countable as apples themselves: if the cardinality of apples is N, the cardinality of apple foursomes is N(N-1)(N-2)(N-3) = O(N**4). Huge, but countable: aleph-0 ** 4 is still aleph-0.
Btw, still trying to work out whether real numbers are individuals or not, and if so how...
---
DR NICK NICHOLAS. nickn@hidden.email
FRENCH & ITALIAN, UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA.
In Athens, news spreads fast: they know everything as soon as it
happens,
sometimes before it happens, and often without it happening at all. --- Jean Psichari, _My Voyage_. http://www.opoudjis.net