WikiDiscuss

pc:
> > > I gather that {lo'i broda} is a distributive
> > > group of sets for you.
> >
> > I know it is pointless to say this again, but
> > anyway: no, it is not a group for me. It is a
> > set or
> > several sets of broda, not a group of sets.
>
> Sorry, it is hard to talk in English about things
> working together without giving them a collective
> label. I had your point (though I disagree with
> it in both respects) and will try to be more
> careful when tlking to you in the future.

I wouldn't even mention it if one of your objections
wasn't precisely centered on the distinction between
sets and a group of sets.

> > > The point at this place is that {lo'i broda}
> > and
> > > {lo selcmi be lo broda}, being different
> > > descriptions are not compelled to be the same
> > > set(s) — any more than two occurrences of
> > {su'o
> > > da poi broda} need to be the same broda(s).
> >
> > Of course not. All it means is that you can
> > replace
> > one expression with the other in a given
> > context
> > and get the same meaning. Neither expression is
> > compelled to be anything without a context.
>
> Sorry, but if they are identical they have to be
> the same sets and there is nothing to compel them
> to be so, even in a single context.

Would you give an example of how you think {lo selcmi
be lo broda} should be used? In the example I gave:

1- mi cuxna fi ko'a goi lo'i karda
2- mi cuxna fi ko'e goi lo selcmi be lo karda
3a- ko'a du ko'e
3b- ko'a na du ko'e
4- mi cuxna fi su'o re da

4 does not follow from 1, 2, 3a, but it does follow
from 1, 2, 3b. You said you find that 2 would be incorrect
usage but I don't understand what your objection to it is.

I'm proposing that {lo'i broda} and {lo selcmi be lo broda}
be equal by definition. Is the above an example where you
would want them to make a distinction? If so, what's the
distinction? If not, could you provide an example that shows
the distinction?

> > > In the current system — not in your ideal one
> > > (and I really don't think you marked that shift
> > > at all) — {lo'i pa broda} is a set(or even sets)
> > > containing exactly a single broda, while {lo pa
> > > selcmi be lo broda} is a single set of broda of
> > > indeterminate size.
> >
> > Right, and I don't propose to equate those.
>
> Why should mentioning the size of a set change
> the whole nature? It seems that internal
> quantifiers are non-restrictive relative clauses.

Mentioning the size of the set does not change the
whole nature. It is perfectly doable in both cases:
{lo'i mu karda} = a set/sets of five cards.
{lo selcmi be lo mu karda} = a set/sets of five cards.

No change of nature. {lo'i} is just shorthand for
{lo selcmi be lo} = "the set of those that really are"
(that happens to be the definition of {lo'i} given in
the ma'oste).

> You regularly say that {loi broda} is one or
> several broda taken collectively, yet, by the
> definition you have been using here, {lo gunma be
> lo broda}, it is in fact several
> several-brodas-taken-collectively (see why
> "group" is so handy, even if it has no
> ontological status?) taken distributively.

{lo broda} are not necessarily taken distributively.
{lo} is silent about distributivity.
Outer quantifiers are always distributive.
{lo gunma be lo broda} is a group/groups of broda.
{loi broda} is also (as currently proposed) a group/groups
of broda.

At one point, I had {loi broda} being just {lo broda}
but with the additional constraint of non-distributivity.
({lo} was even then silent about distributivity.)

John Cowan said that he preferred reified groups/masses,
Robin supported this move. You objected somewhat but then
sort of retracted the objection (as far as I could tell).
Nobody else gave an opinion. Given that I don't have a
preference one way or the other, I changed the definition
of {loi}, from:

loi [PA] broda cu brode = lo [PA] broda cu kansi'u
lo ka ce'u brode

to:

loi [PA] broda = lo gunma be lo [PA] broda

The latter has {loi} more parallel to {lo'i}, the former
had it more parallel to {lo}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail