[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, Jorge Llambías wrote:
>
> la xod cusku di'e
>
> > Dr. Rosta's XS gives: {ci lo re plise} = "three pairs of apples"
> >
> > Is it really referring to apple-collectives?
>
> Three groups of two apples each.
>
> > I don't think that apples can
> > form collectives. But how else would one discuss three pairs? This is the
> > conflation of plurality and collective.
>
> Why can't apples form collectives? Any group of objects can be treated
> collectively, i.e. have properties that apply to the group rather than
> to each member separately. Even with your restricted definition of
> collective, three apples together can have a weight that none of the
> members have, for example.
>
> > I think we agree on our definitions, but mine are here:
> > http://www.lojban.org/wiki/index.php/Towards%20a%20complete%20gadri%20picture
>
> Ok, in that case, XS only distinguishes between a group as a whole and
> the members of a group taken one at a time. It does not distinguish
> collectives from pluralities according to your definitions.
>
> But I don't think any flavour of Lojban distinguishes between your
> collectives and your pluralities. CLL Lojban has {le} for quantification
> over the members, and lei for collective/plurality, the group as a whole.
> (As well as for Stuff, and whatever else.)
A pair of apples (lo re plise) is different from a collective of apples
(loi'a plise). Collectives are distinguished by their emergent
properties. According to Dr. Rosta, I should use a different term, but, I
am using it consistently with my stated definition on my page.
But there is no incompatibility. Your XS gives us a way to discuss pairs
and other tuples, while loi'a refers to Collectives.
--
The Pentagon group believed it had a visionary strategy that would
transform Iraq into an ally of Israel, remove a potential threat to the
Persian Gulf oil trade and encircle Iran with U.S. friends and allies...