[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xod: > 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%20pictur e > > 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. Treating a group of 5 dogs as a group of 5 dogs is logically simpler than treating it as five individual dogs. So it makes sense to treat a group of five dogs as five individual dogs only when one particularly wishes to make the point that the ptoperty in question applies to each dog separately. In other words, the 'default' is (ordinary, not xod) collective. Distributive (and xod-collective) are marked deviations from the default. One virtue of treating collective as default is that the lojban attempt to neutralize the singular/plural distinction becomes a good thing instead of a stupid mabla anti malglico thing. --And.