History: plurals

Source of version: 1 (current)

Here are some of ((xorxes|my)) 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.