[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003, John Cowan wrote: > And Rosta scripsit: > > > (ii) Let (tu'o)lVi mean "Mr Xod-collective of", where a xod-collective is a > > kind of group that shares none of its properties with its constituents; > > So a small group of large objects and a large group of small objects are > xod-collectives, but not a s.g. of s.o. or a l.g. of l.o.? Of what > utility is such a notion? > > Or do you mean that it *essentially* (i.e. non-accidentally) shares none > of its properties? If so, how is it distinct from a mathematical set? I explain my conception here: http://www.lojban.org/wiki/index.php/Towards%20a%20complete%20gadri%20picture I've been sick and have yet to catch up on the past week's discussion. By sharing properties, I believe he means: if the group is red *because* the members are red, you might as well refer to the group as a plurality of individuals, and not a collective. Collective (now called "xod-collective", I take it) is reserved for cases when the group is NOT treated as simply the plurality of individuals, but something different. When does it make sense to treat a group of 5 dogs as anything other than five individual dogs? Jorge generally comes up with clever boundary cases. -- Economic power is exercised by means of a positive, by offering men a reward, an incentive, a payment, a value; political power is exercised by means of a negative, by the threat of punishment, injury, imprisonment, destruction. The businessman's tool is values; the bureaucrat's tool is fear.