WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


plurals

posts: 2388
Use this thread to discuss the page: plurals
posts: 2388

> Use this thread to discuss the page: plurals
While I basically agree with xorxes here, let me (try to stop me) add a few comments.

1. The proper place for distributivity and not to be marked is on the predicate, not (generally) the term. For historical reasons, this was not done and it seems impossible to correct this design error (not that it was when it was made — the best was made of what was known to be available). Since the markings on terms is sytematically incomplete, we still need some way to mark those unmarkable places (well, we CAN mark them but at the cost of considerably more complex construction than are called for).

2. Since the logic of bunches (as I have almost arbitrarily defined them) and of plurals is the same, I have fewer qualms about using such apparently entity-referring terms, partly, I think, because my dialect seems not to treat them uniformly as entity referring: I can say "A bunch of boys are running" and, indeed, cannot say "A bunch of boys is running". "Gang" behaves in the opposite way and "group" can go either way. This holds for both distributive and collective predications.

3. That being said, it does seem to me that {gunma} means something more than what is meant by "bunch/ plural," though I am unsure just what. It seems to me that most of the work that is done in Lojban by masses and even sets is done as well (and more economically) by bunches/plurals, so it is unclear what is left that needs a gismu.

4. {pagbu} is historically the right word for the "among" relation in bunches and the transitivity it implies is aciomatic. What that means for {cmima} and {se gunma} is not clear.

5. If we have cleared up what {loi} is really for, we need (not terribly pressing) to deal with other kinds of collective (roughly) predications: corporations and Urgoo and the like (I keep running across cases that don't fit in exactly but seem too close to one already around to start a new category). They seem to be less common but also to be genuinely entity-producing.

On 6/15/06, pycyn <wikidiscuss@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> 4. {pagbu} is historically the right word for the "among" relation in bunches
> and the transitivity it implies is aciomatic.

I prefer {me} for that:

le tadni cu me le prenu poi sruri le dinju
The students are among the people that surround the building.

That's how CLL uses it too:

la baltazar cu me le ci nolraitru
Balthazar is one of the three kings.

I think {pagbu} can be used for things that are clearly not "among":

le xislu cu pagbu le karce
The wheel is a part of the car.
*The wheel is among the car.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


posts: 2388

Nice point. I have a prejudice against {me} based on its historic variety of disparate uses
(citations of CLL are notoriously unhelpful); if this will tie the meaning down and to a prime
concept, I am all for it.



> On 6/15/06, pycyn <wikidiscuss@lojban.org> wrote:
> >
> > 4. {pagbu} is historically the right word for the "among" relation in bunches
> > and the transitivity it implies is aciomatic.
>
> I prefer {me} for that:
>
> le tadni cu me le prenu poi sruri le dinju
> The students are among the people that surround the building.
>
> That's how CLL uses it too:
>
> la baltazar cu me le ci nolraitru
> Balthazar is one of the three kings.
>
> I think {pagbu} can be used for things that are clearly not "among":
>
> le xislu cu pagbu le karce
> The wheel is a part of the car.
> *The wheel is among the car.
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>
>
>
>