WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


Wiki page BPFK Section: Grammatical Pro-sumti changed

posts: 2388


wrote:

>
> --- John Cowan wrote:
> > Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
> >
> > > If da is a singular variable then it can't
> be loi broda.
> >
> > To my mind that counts as a counterargument
> for the eliminative
> > definition of loi broda. To me loi broda is
> just as much an object
> > as pa broda, at least when properly
> quantified. Trying to minimize
> > the ontology, as is fashionable in modern
> logics, is Not The Lojban Way.
>
> I tend to agree. Unless anyone opposes, I will
> be redefining
> {loi [PA] broda} as {lo gunma be lo [PA]
> broda}. The x2 of
> gunma is non-distributive. This would mean that
> {loi} (and
> correspondingly {lu'o} and {joi}) are for
> reified collectives,
> whereas {lo} can still be used for non-reified
> non-distributive
> plural.
>
Oops! I have you down for maintaining that {lo}
was distributive; did I miss something? As noted
earlier, the only real objection to reified
groups is that their rules are not well worked
out relative to plurals — and the variation in
predicate meaning they seem to involve.
Interestingly, the kinds of reified groups that
McKay allows seem to be those semipermanent
groups with changing members that get names:
General Motors, that old gang of mine, the St.
Louis Cardinals and so on.