TECH: masses & discussers

[ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

ar> > > 11. "The place structure of "casnu" is: the mass x1 discusses/talks
ar> > > about x2 so the x1 place must be occupied by a mass". This seems
ar> > > nonsensical, unless the x1 of casnu is merely arbitrarily required
ar> > > to be a mass. So far as I can tell, only gunma's x1 needs to be a
ae> > > mass.
jl> > {casnu} is supposed to mean something like "x1 interchange opinions
jl> > about x2". It doesn't make much sense to have a single person
jl> > casnuing, unless they are talking to themselves. The restriction to
jl> > being a mass is nothing but that, I think.
jc> At one point it was intended to make the x1 of "casnu" a set, but
jc> someone (Nora?) pointed out that people may participate in a discussion
jc> without actually talking, so that a mass is a good model.  Also, a
jc> discussion may continue with various people arriving or leaving without
jc> losing its identity. The main reason for not using an individual is
jc> that "le prenu cu casnu" would mean that >each< of them is discussing:
jc> begging the question "With whom?"

By the sounds of things, the x1 of casnu is a group/team/collectivity,
and not a mass. As we've already had numerous nuncasnu about the nature
of masses, none of which have in the long term persuaded me that so-called
masses in Lojban are clearly or consistently understood (issues of
individuation, instantiation and countability, appear to be confused with
issues of collectivity and distributivity; among various standard
examples, e.g. beer-drinking chicagoans, piano carriers, coloured balls,
I see no common factors), rather than starting another thread, I would
ask to be directed to the most pertient discussions in the refgrammar
papers. So far I have found nothing that makes lojban masses make sense.

---
And