Re: No static, democratic (was: essentials of a gadrisystem)

xod:
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Jorge Llambías wrote:
> > la xod cusku di'e
> > > So I can make a statement about a plurality which is a different
> > > statement if applied to the same plurality marked as a collective.
> >
> > I think you and I agree. We just have different ideas about
> > which of the two situations is more basic/frequent.
>
> Is this my western culture bias? I find it hard to consider constituent
> individuals as less basic than the groups they can form at times.

I wouldn't want to argue or bet about which is more frequent. They're
both frequent enough to warrant being comparatively basic compared to
the rest of the system.

But I do claim that the Group is logically more basic than the Distributive.
Consider {le} (= {ro le}). To get its meaning, you first take the specific
Group that is being referred to, and then as a second step you quantify
over its members. Referring to a Group is simpler than Referring to a Group
and then quantifying over its members.

> > Hopefully we both agree that {le pa broda} and {lei pa broda} are
> > equivalent ways of refering to an individual, given that a single
> > individual taken "one at a time" is equivalent to a single individual
> > taken "together".
>
> Except I think the latter form is at best unhelpful and misleading (Grice.
> Grice.), and at worst an interesting koan like zi'o crino -- given that I
> think loi'a should be used to draw the reader's attention to emergent
> properties, and no properties emerge from a collective with only one
> member.

You're right, given that you're talking about loi'a, the Collective with
Emergent Property. But xorxes, in {lei pa broda}, is taking it to mean
a Group of one broda, without an additional claim that this group has
emergent properties.

--And.