|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| Here are some of [[User:xorxes|xorxe's]] thoughts on loi/joi and gunma/cmima/pagbu.
| | [[jbocre: Esperanto|Esperantist]], [[jbocre: Klingon|Klingonist]], [[jbocre: Lojbanist|Lojbanist]]. In [[jbocre: Year 2001|2001]] he reappeared after many years of comparative silence on the [[jbocre: Lojban mailing list|Lojban mailing list]]. |
|
| |
|
| 1- I will avoid using the term "mass" or any other similar noun
| | ''I actually had made some posts here and there in the interim, if you look. I think I'm going to say as little as possible on this page, and let you, my adoring public, fill in what you think should be here. Until that depresses me too much.'' |
|
| |
|
| to talk about how loi/joi work. This is in part to avoid confusion
| | .i la mark clsn. cu carmi pendo mi gi'e banli mi'e [[User:Nick Nicholas|nitcion]] |
|
| |
|
| with English "mass nouns", but mainly to avoid a reifying
| | '' [[jbocre: .kreig.daniyl.|.kreig.daniyl.]]:'' |
|
| |
|
| interpretation of loi/joi which any noun automatically brings
| | ''when I went to look up banli in my gi'uste, I looked at the wrong line and thought that you had said that Mark was your friend and that he was a quantity of grease or oil, which puzzled me.'' |
|
| |
|
| in with it. This is not to say, of course, that we can't talk in
| | [http://klingonska.org/akademien/foton/pic/0719-3.jpg] |
|
| |
|
| Lojban about groups, collections, assortments, bunches,
| | Website: [http://web.meson.org/ web.meson.org] |
| | |
| 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<br />
| |
| | |
| 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<br />
| |
| | |
| {ko'a joi ko'e} is non-distributive<br />
| |
| | |
| {ko'a jo'u ko'e} is silent on distributivity.<br />
| |
| | |
| {ro broda} is distributive<br />
| |
| | |
| {loi broda} is non-distributive<br />
| |
| | |
| {lo broda} is silent on distributivity.<br />
| |
| | |
| 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<br />
| |
| | |
| The committee is formed by John and Mary.
| |
| | |
| la djan .e la meris cu cmima le kamni<br />
| |
| | |
| 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<br />
| |
| | |
| A wheel is part of a car.
| |
![[1]](http://klingonska.org/akademien/foton/pic/0719-3.jpg){kind=link}