WikiDiscuss

---

wrote:

>
> pc:
> > I would read {me
> > lo'i broda} as "one broda," that is "one
> member
> > of the set of broda," taking it to be the
> analog
> > for sets of "among" for plurals (that is
> > strictly, of course, inclusion, not
> membership
> > but at least for singulars the difference is
> > systematically ignored).
>
> OK, but that's not how I'm reading it.
>
> I read {me sumti} as "x1 is/are among the
> referents of
> sumti" in all cases, even when the referent
> of sumti
> is a set.

Then, if "sumti" refers to a set or group, {me
"sumti"} is just {du "sumti"}, a much clearer
claim, to say the least. And this is then
completely general, since every sumti
refers to an individual, in which case {me
"sumti"} reduces to {du "sumti"} by default.
So, what is the point of it? If, on the other
hand, it refers to one of the things in an
abstract individual, then it is quite useful. Of
course, applied to a concrete individual it is
more problematic, but probably should then reduce
to identity.

> > Otherwise, {me lo'i
> > broda} reduces to {lo'i broda} and the
> > definitions that follow that form become
> circular
> > and the whole expression useless.
>
> {me lo'i broda} is a brivla, so it can't reduce
> to {lo'i broda}.
> I'm not sure which definitions you consider
> that become
> circular.

All the ones that run {lo me "sumti"} especially
when defining "sumti" or one of its extensions.
>
> > > ro le mu broda = ro da poi ke'a me le mu
> > > broda
> >
> > And what does that mean now that meanings are
> > shifting all over the place? If — as
> appears to
> > be the case — it means all the things that
> are
> > groups of five specific brodas,
>
> No, that's not what it means. It means "each of
> the things
> that are a referent of {le mu broda}, i.e. each
> of the
> five brodas. There are no groups involved here.

Says you, but the evidence is against you: only
individuals are allowed, not plurals; your own
"formal definition" has {lo} "defined" as an
individual (as it must, of course, until som
other sense of predication has been defined. One
of the advantages of plural quantification is
that distributive and singular predication can be
defined in terms of it but there has yet ot
appear a defintion of collective predication in
terms of singular or distributive.); and group
interpetation is the historic Lojban position
until a new one is explained and accepted. Your
proposal — and remember it is not yet gospel --
fails on both counts so far.

> > My choice would be, as you know, to use
> > plural definitions and use {loi} for
> collective
> > predications, {lo} for distributive and
> {lo'i}
> > for permanent collectives, but that is a
> proposal
> > to be debated separately, not assumed in
> > discussions of what proposal to use.
>
> Yes, I understand that.
>
> > As for doing
> > something other than reified thigns for {loi}
> and
> > {lo'i}; what choices do we have?
>
> Those are the two basic choices, I think.

I only gave one position, what is the other? I
suppose you mean "plural constants" or at least
plurals. How would that work exactly in terms of
singulars — all we have to start with after all.

> > > > In English, which is more subject to
> > > > these tricks than some, I could make a
> case
> > > for
> > > > "a half from the four apples" but not a
> tight
> > > > case. What does Spanish offer along this
> > > line --
> > > > or any other natural language (not of
> course
> > > a
> > > > proof, but evidence surely)?
> > >
> > > "Media de las cuatro manzanas", as opposed
> to
> > > "la mitad
> > > de las cuatro manzanas". The latter is
> > > ambiguous
> > > between two apples and four half-apples,
> just
> > > as
> > > "half of the four apples" in English.
> > >
> > I took the first to be unambiguously in
> favoe of
> > two apples — correct?
>
> No. "Media de las cuatro manzanas" is
> unambiguously "half
> (an apple) out of the four apples". "La mitad
> de las cuatro
> manzanas" is ambiguous between two other
> meanings, the same
> ones of "half of the four apples": i.e. two
> apples or
> four half-apples.

I'll take your word for it, but then I will have
to go back and reread some things from long ago.
As for the "half of the four apples." it cannot
mean in my idiolect four half apples, the nearest
I can come to that-- after the example I gave
before — "the halves of four apples" and even
that is iffy. But in no case do we get to a half
an apple.