Re: luha

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

pc:
>  I
> think the most useful thing for me would be for xorxes to prepare a grid
> of that sort and fill in each square explicitly.  I fear even
>  that would have its problems, since we have different starting points
> on some issues

I have thought some more about it, and I came to the conclusion
that it doesn't really matter to me which interpretation is finally
chosen. The reason is that the only two cases that I find useful
are {lu'a <mass>} and {lu'o <individuals>} and we both agree,
I think, on how to handle those.

{lu'a <mass>} would be "at least one of the components of <mass>".

{lu'o <individuals>} would be "at least one mass with components <individuals>".

I think {su'o} is the right default quantifier for both. Other
quantifiers are of course possible: {ro lu'a <mass>} is "each of the
components of <mass>", {re lu'o ci lo gerku} is "two masses of
three dogs", etc.

{lu'o <mass>} is redundant in both interpretations, and it means
practically the same in both as well, so I don't care how it is
exactly to be defined.

The only case where there may be an interesting disagreement is
{lu'a <individuals>}. I would slightly prefer it if {lu'a le girzu}
meant "at least one member of the group" rather than just "the group",
which is already what {le girzu} means. It would also be useful for
things like {lu'a le re girzu}, "a member of the two groups", rather
than it being just "at least one of the groups", which is what {su'o
le re girzu} already means.

As for the ones involving sets, the same applies, but since I think
sets do not really belong in normal conversation (unless we are
talking about logic or math) I don't mind much any of the meanings.

I think we agree that {lu'i <individuals>} is a set whose members
are the <individuals>, and {lu'a <set>} is at least one individual
member of <set>.

{lu'i <mass>} could be either a set whose only member is the <mass>,
or a set whose members are all the components of the <mass>. I don't
have a preference. The same thing but the other way around applies
to {lu'o <set>}.

The only remaining case is {lu'i <set>}, which is either the same <set>
again, or a set whose member is <set>. The last one seems more
useful for talking about sets, since sets of sets are quite common,
but since I don't plan to use Lojban for that, I don't have a strong
preference.

Jorge