Wiki page BPFK Section: gismu Issues changed
On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 01:33:52PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> John Cowan:
> > > I (Robin Powell) am of the opinion that the "set" places
> > > in various gismu are un-necessary, and should be abolished (with
> > > the obvious exception of gismu that are specifically about sets).
> > > Any specification of a group should be acceptable in these places.
> >
> > I don't think that's going to fly unless we have a list of which
> > places you want to change.
>
> I find 22 gismu with places reserved exclusively for sets: slilu,
> bridi, kampu, simxu, steci, mupli, fadni, rirci, cnano, ralju, cuxna,
> sisku, kancu, girzu, ciste, liste, porsi, pluta, kruvi, linji, plita,
> kurfa.
>
> Other gismu have places that mention sets, but they also allow other
> things there. For example, the place structure of {fenso} says that
> you can saw individuals together, or if you prefer you can saw a set
> together.
>
> > Sets were used there *because* they were the singularist view of a
> > group.
>
> But since there are examples of non-distributive places where the
> gi'uste allows normal individuals, there is no reason for these places
> to be restricted exclusively to sets.
What he said.
More: jbini, bende (not kidding; read the notes), traji (the broken x4
place).
Note, interestingly, that girzu has a set-required place, but gunma does
not. So it's not even consistent, that I can see. Amazingly, cmima is
actually *unclear* as to whether the second argument must be a set.
Some words say "(x2, if a set, is completely specified)", which I'm fine
with.
Note that, unlike xorxes, I *love* sets, and I love that Lojban has them
as a primitive type (although we're missing an operator). But requiring
sets as opposed to other types of groups seems silly in most cases.
-Robin