WikiDiscuss

---

wrote:

>
> 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.

It works as well with several sets as with groups
of sets, since that is not the point.

> > > > 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?

Well, I said I was not interested in improving
xorlan now that it is clear that is what we are
talking about. Given that definition of {loi}, I
would be hard pressed to answer. But of course
it was the propriety of that definition

• in**Lojban*** that was the issue here.

> > > > 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).

Sorry I forgot that you are talking about xorlan,
with that strange defeinition, not about Lojban,
which I was foolishly continuiing to discuss.

> > 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.

I guess that means that your earlier remarks
about the referent of {loi broda} being brodas
taken collectively was either a slip or a facon
de parler (which I should, I suppose, have
understoood as such). You always really meant
not some number of broda but some number of some
number of brodas, the latter at least taken
collectively. OK, ypou said it oddly, but if
that is the way you have defined it in xorlan, so
be it. I have no objections to that and, while I
think to do so would be stupid, I have no real
objection to adopting that as the official Lojban
(now strictly 2) position. I do think that all
these changes should be mentioned in your summary
of the effects of adopting your various
proposals, which change virtually all the
descriptors, and are generally not backward
compatible unless our only samples are xorlan
disguised as Lojban over the years.

> 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).

I preferred (and still prefer) plural
quantification. Groups are essential, however,
if we are to continue singular quantification.
The differences are minor, but technically
significant.

> 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

This is an improvement since it was unclear that
{kansi'u} really did the job, while {gunma} at
least clearly does that one. The other xorlan
peculiarities remain.

> The latter has {loi} more parallel to {lo'i},
> the former
> had it more parallel to {lo}.
>
Mainly because the definitions of {lo} are so
screwed up.

End of this discussion, since it has apparently
been a cross-purposes — talking about different
languages — from the get-go.