[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: tech:masses



pc:
> Mr. Rabbit treats not only all rabbits separately but all rabbits
> collectively as a single individual, in the sense that whatever is true
> of  a rabbit or a group of rabbits collectively (maybe with some
> restrictions, e.g., about weight, say) is true of Mr. Rabbit.

I'm clear on this now. In present lojban this is {piro loi ractu}.
In the de-fractionatored version I propsed & Jorge seconded, it
would be {ro loi ractu}.

> Now, if that is what xorexes meant by _lo'e_ and he also meant the x2
> place of <hunt> to be transparent, it still doesn't fly -- certainly
> not for unicorn hunting and no even for deer or lions, unless the hunt
> is successful.

I don't think that is what X meant by {loe}. He accepts the myopic
singular meaning for {loe}, whereby Unicorn A and Unicorn B are
(treated as) one and the same. So while {kalte loe pavseljirna}
doesn't exactly translate "hunt a unicorn (any old unicorn whatsoever)"
(rather, one might render it (still imperfectly) as "hunt the unicorn",
"hunt unicorn", "hunt Unicorn", "hunt the Unicorn"), it serves its
purpose mainly by not being le/lei (so you don't need to be
able to answer the question "Which unicorn?") lo/loi (so you don't
claim "There is a/some unicorn, such that ...").

> The "piecee" construction, "a scoop of..." is the mass-to-count
> converter, though it does not always (often? ever?) give back the
> units that were massified in porridgification.

{lua} does, though.

John:
> The following article by JCB was published in TL1/3 (February 1977),
> pages 177-80.  I think it makes clear that "loi" (his "lo") reflects
> the collective/porridge view of Loglan masses, not the myopic-singular
> view, despite the frequent references to Trobrianders --- who
> apparently do, at least in JCB's view of them, think of "Mr. Rabbit"
> as what And called a "midgard-rabbit-hydra".

I agree that '"loi" (his "lo") reflects the collective/porridge view".
I also agree that JCB's Trobrianders 'think of "Mr. Rabbit" as what
And called a "midgard-rabbit-hydra"'.
Myopic singulars figure nowhere in JCB's account.

I now feel much clearer in my mind about the meaning of {loi}, {lei}
and {loe}. About {lee}, {lai} and {lahi} I remain uncertain. For {lee},
I suggested pc's "average chicagoan" interpretation. {lai}, I hope
could be a collective counterpart to {la}, which is distributive;
Imaybe that's the current situation, and I just hadn't realized it
because noone uses {la} to refer to pluralities. As for {lahi broda},
I presume it's the set that has ro la broda as its member. If that's
correct, then whereas in the le- and lo-series, {le} and {lo} are the
basic terms, in some ways in the la-series it is {lai} that is the
basic term, since it is the referent of {lai broda} that is actually
called "broda". Thus, {lai cmen cu selcme zo cmen} would be true,
but {la cmen cu selcme zo cmen} (if {la cmen} refers to a plurality)
and {lahi cmen cu selcme zo cmen} could be false.

coo, mie And