--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
It seems that using xorlo prevents explicitly talking about indivduals, such as
/one elephant/, a seemingly simple concept. Let's start with an inner quantifier:
lo pa xanto = zo'e noi ke'a xanto gi'e zilkancu li pa lo xanto,
However, the latter {lo xanto} in zilkancu3 can denote about a group of
elephants, so {lo pa xanto} can indeed be many elephants. Outer quantifiers
will not help, as they will only range over the inner object.
Here is a way if recovering the concept of an individual elephant just from the concepts of elephants and parthood:
A xanto pamei is something that is xanto and that can't be divided in two things such that each one is xanto.
"lo pa xanto" can only be a single elephant: the elephant in front of you, the African elephant, the elephant being digested by a boa constrictor in Saint-Exupery's drawing, etc. but it always has to be one. It cannot be a group of elephants in front of you, all African elephants, the millions of elephants being digested by boa constrictors in the millions of reproductions of that picture, etc.
lo pa xanto = zo'e noi ke'a xanto gi'e zilkancu li pa lo xanto,but {lo xanto} can be plural, so this removes the effect of the zilkancu part. Is it that I misunderstand this equation, or is it just false?
Let me just note that making xanto singular wouldn't help me either: Which elephant in the world could possibly be a unit for counting elephants?
I'm using the expansions suggested in http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section:+gadri, wherebut {lo xanto} can be plural, so this removes the effect of the zilkancu part. Is it that I misunderstand this equation, or is it just false?
lo pa xanto = zo'e noi ke'a xanto gi'e zilkancu li pa lo xanto,
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Felipe Gonçalves Assis <felipe...@gmail.com> wrote:
Let me just note that making xanto singular wouldn't help me either: Which elephant in the world could possibly be a unit for counting elephants?If you don't think that the elephant is a good unit for counting elephants, you could say "lo gradu be fi lo ka xanto", or, as you said, redefine "kancu" so that it takes a tergradu instead of a gradu in x4.
Do you have the same qualms with "lo mitre" or "lo snidu" to refer to units? What would you fill the x1 of gradu with?
I am sorry, maybe you can expand on your understanding of {gradu}?
The best I could come up with for using {gradu} is, e.g.,{ko'a gradu lo si'o mitre} <=> {ko'a mitre li pa}
{gradu ko'e ko'i} <=> {ko'e ckilu ko'i}with, e.g,{lo si'o mitre cu ckilu lo ka ma kau ni ce'u clani}
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 8:24 PM, Felipe Gonçalves Assis <felipe...@gmail.com> wrote:
I am sorry, maybe you can expand on your understanding of {gradu}?
My personal "definition" of gradu is this:...milticentidectigradudektoxectokilto...same type of place structure for all of them.
The best I could come up with for using {gradu} is, e.g.,{ko'a gradu lo si'o mitre} <=> {ko'a mitre li pa}
{gradu ko'e ko'i} <=> {ko'e ckilu ko'i}with, e.g,{lo si'o mitre cu ckilu lo ka ma kau ni ce'u clani}I never really understood the connection of "si'o" with scales.
How would you contrast {gradu} and {dunli}?
--
la .xorxes. cu cusku di'e
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Dan Rosén <lur...@gmail.com
> <mailto:lur...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
> I'm using the expansions suggested in
> http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section:+gadri, where
>
>
> lo pa xanto = zo'e noi ke'a xanto gi'e zilkancu li pa lo xanto,
>
> but {lo xanto} can be plural, so this removes the effect of the
> zilkancu part. Is it that I misunderstand this equation, or is it
> just false?
>
>
> I don't think it's quite right to say that "lo xanto" can be plural,
> because Lojban doesn't have grammatical number, so it can't strictly be
> singular or plural. But a natural translation of "lo xanto" in this
> context would indeed be plural in English, something like "is 1 counting
> in elephants".
If I may, Dan is asking why the unit {lo xanto} cannot be (implicitly)
{lo ci xanto}, in which case three elephants would be counted as one
counting off by threes. Using a property in zilkancu3 would probably be
clearer for that reason. As it stands, some people seem to think that
the zilkancu3 unit contains a context-dependent inner quantifier, thus
counting of by {xo'e mei}. I don't think that's the intended meaning, so
it should be stated clearly that we're dealing with singletons.
So singular variables are simpler and avoid certain problems, like the
{pa xanto} one. On the other hand, it would mean that we can't say {da
simxu lo ka prami} for "There are some X who love each other", and we'd
have to use more complicated mechanisms for that, like {da poi su'o mei
cu simxu lo ka prami} (which isn't *that* bad).
Sorry for intruding. I need to explain this in simple words for a future lojban tutorial.So{zo'e} denotes an individual/individuals.{lo najgenja} = carrot/carrots{ci lo najgenja cu grake li 60} = {ci zo'e noi najgenja cu grake li 60} - describes carrots. Three of carrots are 60 grams each.Now I postulate an axiom that {[su'o] lo pa najgenja} describes one carrot (I'll avoid formulae here since i need it for a tutorial, not for a reference grammar).{ro lo ci najgenja} describes each of the three carrots.
Two important conclusions:1. {ro lo ci najgenja cu grake li 60} - one carrot is always 60 grams in weight.2. {ro loi ci najgenja cu grake li 60} = {ro zo'e noi gunma lo ci najgenja cu grake li 60} - describes masses (again of carrots but carrots here are of less importance since carrots are hidden inside gunma2). Each mass of carrots (with three carrots in each mass) is 60 grams so each carrots weighs 20 grams on average.
Is my reasoning correct?
I remember someone saying that {lo} is more vague and might include masses as well but here {loi} and it's underlying {gunma} move carrots higher. Can we accept raising here? If yes then all this reasoning immediately breaks.
lo pa xanto = zo'e noi ke'a xanto gi'e zilkancu li pa lo xanto,
If I may, Dan is asking why the unit {lo xanto} cannot be (implicitly) {lo ci xanto}, in which case three elephants would be counted as one counting off by threes. Using a property in zilkancu3 would probably be clearer for that reason.
As it stands, some people seem to think that the zilkancu3 unit contains a context-dependent inner quantifier, thus counting of by {xo'e mei}. I don't think that's the intended meaning, so it should be stated clearly that we're dealing with singletons.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
la .pycyn. cu cusku di'e
<snip>
underdocumented and scattered definitions.... [M]ore complete specification that one can point someone to instead of having to re-open a discussion about xorlo.
<snip>
We need to know if variables are plural or singular, that's all. Currently, they are "defined" as singular, for some value of "defined" that makes sense when there is no official body to define it.Variables range over L-sets or are plural, depending on
your mathematical theology. Etc. do we need to fill in all the details
and, if not, which ones?
<snip>
la .guskant. cu cusku di'e
> Le mercredi 5 février 2014 20:47:54 UTC+9, selpa'i a écrit :
> If I may, Dan is asking why the unit {lo xanto} cannot be (implicitly)
> {lo ci xanto}, in which case three elephants would be counted as one
> counting off by threes. Using a property in zilkancu3 would probably be
> clearer for that reason. As it stands, some people seem to think that
> the zilkancu3 unit contains a context-dependent inner quantifier, thus
> counting of by {xo'e mei}. I don't think that's the intended
> meaning, so
> it should be stated clearly that we're dealing with singletons.
>
>
> If you mean simply "one-some" of a mass with the word "singleton", I
> agree with you for English "explanation" of {lo PA broda}. As for Lojban
> "definition", I would rather support the current definition, and need a
> Lojban definition of {kancu}, which is used in the definition of {zilkancu}.
Right, I'm not proposing to change the definition. I only explained the
reason for Dan's confusion. Making zilkancu (or kancu) clearer, would
solve the problem, but it would also help to explicitly state (in
English, for beginners) that in {lo PA broda}, we don't count by context
dependent units. Counting off by {lo broda} is intended to mean that {lo
ci broda} contains three individuals that each {broda}. This is what the
current definitions tries to say. It just wasn't clear enough for Dan or
la latro'a.
> However, if you mean "individual" with the word "singleton", it is
> better not to state it, because any mass, no matter if it is used as
> collective or distributive, can be a unit "one-some" in some sense.
Once you have a mass, then that mass is a new individual altogether. But
a sumti like {mi'o} or {mi jo'u do} is not a mass, it's just two
individuals together.
> An individual is defined as follows (based on Plural Predication by
> Thomas McKay, 2006):
>
> "SUMTI is individual" =ca'e {RO DA poi ke'a me SUMTI zo'u SUMTI me DA}
> where RO and DA are not a singular quantifier {ro} and a singular
> variable {da} of Lojban, but a plural quantifier and a plural variable
> respectively.
Yes, that is exactly the definition of "individual" I am using.
> If {zilkancu}_3 should be always an individual, {lo ckafi} is not an
> individual in many cases of universe of discourse, and it cannot be
> {zilkancu}_3.
{lo ckafi} is an amount of coffee. If I have two separate amounts of
coffee, then I can count them together {lo re ckafi}.
I would still call {lo ckafi} an individual. Using a property in
zilkancu3 has been suggested, so we either count by {lo ckafi} or {lo ka
ckafi}. The thing that makes {lo pa ckafi} different from {lo pa prenu}
is that splitting {lo pa ckafi} will result in two new {lo ckafi},
whereas splitting a person will just... kill it.
I would assume these pages also exist on the MediaWiki, but you'd have to ask the maintainer, Gleki, where they are.