Re: TECH: masses

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

pc:
>  The collective sense seems to be
> the one we get the most use out of , so we should probably tie it to
> _loi_ and its analogs.

ui i ko jundi i ko jundi

> I think that resulting form would be a good
> base for teh other two notions -- the verbal side of masses properly
> speaking, certainly  (especially if _loi_ is _su'o loi_), and at least
> plausibly for species.

I didn't very well understand what you meant by the "verbal side of
masses". For the individual-as-species case, I'm happy with {lo'e}:

        lo'e cinfo cu citka lo'e rectu
        The lion eats meat.
        The lion is a meat eater.

        la djan kalte lo'e cinfo
        John hunts the lion.
        John hunts lions.
        John is a lion hunter.

I don't think Lojban makes the distinction between "shiftingly bounded
continuities" and its opposite, at least not with any article. If I
put {pa lo djacu} in a bucket, and then I put another {pa lo djacu} in
it, and then I show the result to you, you will hardly want to say that
the bucket contains {re lo djacu}. On the other hand, if I put {pa lo
mlatu} and then another {pa lo mlatu}, you will see {re lo mlatu} in
the bucket. If I cut a {pa lo djacu} in half, I end up with {re lo djacu}.
If I cut a {pa lo mlatu} in half, I do not end up with {re lo mlatu}.
This is because {djacu} is normally a shiftingly bounded continuity,
while {mlatu} is not, and the gadri don't change that property. So
{mlatu} and {djacu} behave differently under fission and fusion because
of their intrinsic semantics, not because of any external marker.

Jorge