Bunches
> On 11/26/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > So, like dash, star goes more with the
> > argument than the predicate (though sometimes
> > with the predicate, apparently). Notation
> needs
> > some work here.
>
> I think one could say that it indicates the
> *manner* in which
> an argument fills a place. It is not a property
> of a sumti
> when not filling a place nor of a place when
> not being filled
> by a sumti.
I'm not sure what the practical upshot of this is
for either the theory or Lojban but it is
essentially correct metaphysically. It seems to
suggest the detached (UIish)marker, part of
neither component. The fit of theory and Lojban
is not very good at present. In Lojban the
predication is neutral, with the differentiation
being only in the gadri, with {lV} also be
neutral except when differntiation is needed,
when it becomes distributive just by not being
{lVi}. In the thory the basic predication is
collective; neutral is achieved by disjunction.
But the bunch is the same whether predicated of
distributively or collectively.
> Another interesting system, similar to bunches
> but different in
> one respect, is the system of kinds. Kinds,
> with the relation
> "subkind" for "in", share all the same thesis
> as bunches except
> for this one: "Every bunch breaks down
> completely into individuals".
> For kinds, it is not the case that every kind
> breaks down completely
> into ultimate kinds, where an ultimate kind is
> a kind that has only
> itself as a subkind, i.e. the equivalent of
> "individual" for bunches.
I'm not sure that it will work out that there are
kinds that do not break down into subkinds. The
tendency to dichotomize is pretty strong after
all. I can't think of a real case, anyhow. Of
course, this does require in some cases, taking
individuals as infima species (a hallowed
practice).