From Lojban
Revision as of 12:49, 23 March 2014 by Gleki (talk | contribs) (Gleki moved page jbocre: plurals to plurals without leaving a redirect: Text replace - "jbocre: p" to "p")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Here are some of xorxe's thoughts on loi/joi and gunma/cmima/pagbu.

1- I will avoid using the term "mass" or any other similar noun

to talk about how loi/joi work. This is in part to avoid confusion

with English "mass nouns", but mainly to avoid a reifying

interpretation of loi/joi which any noun automatically brings

in with it. This is not to say, of course, that we can't talk in

Lojban about groups, collections, assortments, bunches,

sets, crowds, packs or any other creatures with constituent

members. Those things are perfectly valid things to talk about,

but in my opinion loi/joi do not by themselves bring in any

reference to any of them. If we talk about a mass of some

things, then we are immediately talking about a new entity

with properties of its own, and then we have to discuss how

properties are inherited back and forth between this new thing

and its constituents, and that is really not needed for loi/joi.

2- The ONLY thing loi/joi do is block a distributive reading

for its referents. {joi} always involves at least two things,

one on either side. {loi} need not in principle involve at least

two, but it makes little sense to block a distributive reading

for one single thing, so at least pragmatically it tends to

involve at least two things.

3- loi/joi contrast with lo/jo'u which do not block a distributive

reading (but neither do they force one). For example, it is

perfectly acceptable for me to say something like:

la djan jo'u la meris pu jgari lo tutci gi'e co'a zbasu lo zdani

John and Mary grabbed the tools and started to build a house.

where "grabbed the tools" can be distributive (each one of them

grabbed a different tool) and "started to build a house" collective

(they started to build the same house together). It is possible

to be more precise if desired:

la djan .e la meris pu jgari lo tutci ije la djan joi la meris co'a zbasu lo zdani

where {.e} in the first sentence is distributive and {joi} in the

second is non-distributive. This precision is often unnecessary,

but it is available when needed. {lo} and {jo'u} are useful because

we often want to apply both distributive and non-distributive

properties to the same referents at the same time.

{ko'a .e ko'e} is distributive

{ko'a joi ko'e} is non-distributive

{ko'a jo'u ko'e} is silent on distributivity.

{ro broda} is distributive

{loi broda} is non-distributive

{lo broda} is silent on distributivity.

4- Using {loi} for substances and generics is in my opinion pragmatically

wrong, because in order to block distributivity {loi} has to first

bring the issue

up, and with substances and generics the issue should not even arise. I find

{le kabri cu vasru lo djacu} much better than {le kabri cu vasru loi djacu}

for "the cup contains water", even if both are theoretically possible.

{loi djacu} brings in the totally irelevant possibility of the distribution

of quantities of water, just in order to block it.

5- I think {gunma} should mean:

"x1 is a mass/group/bunch/aggregation/collection/assortment

consisting of constituents x2"

where x1 is a single entity and x2 are many entities that together

(non-distributively, obviously!) constitute x1. So for example:

le kamni cu gunma la djan joi la meris

The committee is formed by John and Mary.

la djan .e la meris cu cmima le kamni

Both John and Mary are members of the committee.

6- {pagbu} differs from {cmima} in that {pagbu} is a transitive

relationship and {cmima} is not. If A is a part of B and B is a

part of C, then A is a part of C, but if A is a member of B and

B is a member of C, then generally A need not be a member

of C.

{pagbu} is not much related to joi/loi:

lo xislu cu pagbu lo karce

A wheel is part of a car.