Remove sets and masses

[solpahi]

The singularist "set" and "mass" sumti places make no sense with xorlo in place. Turn all of them into plurals.

[durka]

There's no distinction between sets and masses anymore?

[solpahi]

la durka cu cusku di'e

There's no distinction between sets and masses anymore?

There is a distinction between sets and masses, but neither of them
should be required by any gismu. xorlo introduced plural reference into
the language, so now we say {lo tadni cu simxu lo ka tavla}, not {lo'i
tadni cu simxu}. We say {traji fi lo danlu} not {fi lo'i danlu} etc.
Sets and masses being required is only useful when you work under
singularism (pre-xorlo).

This does not change anything about sets and masses. {lo gunma be lo
prenu} is still different from {lo selcmi be lo prenu}. {loi} and {lo'i}
don't change at all, they are just no longer required by gismu places.

[xorxes]

On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 12:23 PM, selpahi notifications@github.com wrote:

The singularist "set" and "mass" sumti places make no sense with xorlo in
place. Turn all of them into plurals.

I agree that the "set" and "mass" tags should be eliminated, but they
shouldn't all be turned into plurals. I think the general rule (there may
be a few exceptions here and there) is that "set" corresponds to plural and
"mass" corresponds to a singular with many constituents. The most general
case being "gunma", in which x2 is plural and x1 is for the emerging
singular thing that consist of x2. "x1 consists of x2", "x2 constitute x1".

[solpahi]

la .xorxes. cu cusku di'e

On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 12:23 PM, selpahi notifications@github.com wrote:

The singularist "set" and "mass" sumti places make no sense with xorlo in
place. Turn all of them into plurals.

I agree that the "set" and "mass" tags should be eliminated, but they
shouldn't all be turned into plurals. I think the general rule (there may
be a few exceptions here and there) is that "set" corresponds to plural and
"mass" corresponds to a singular with many constituents. The most general
case being "gunma", in which x2 is plural and x1 is for the emerging
singular thing that consist of x2. "x1 consists of x2", "x2 constitute x1".

Sure, when a new emergent entity is crucial to the meaning of the
predicate, then it shouldn't be turned into a plural. It's enough to
know that we generally want set places gone so the revision of specific
gismu can go smoother.

Of course gunma itself is the mass predicate, so it should obviously
create a mass. (Though for some reason the same reasoning doesn't seem
to apply to {cmima}. I see relatively many {cmima lo tadni} usages)

There are many "mass" places which would be absolutely fine as plurals,
and where a mass would just be inconvenient: misno2, lanxe2, quantity
places like xukmi2 and salta2; klesi1, jmaji1, cuntu2, etc.

Plurals are compatible with masses, since a mass is just an individual,
so they can be used as long as the place allows "singleton plural" (a
place that can be satisfied by one or more individuals). (simxu1 is a
counter-example to this rule; it needs at least 2 referents, so a single
mass would not work, but multiple masses could simxu)

mi'e la selpa'i

[xorxes]

On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 7:01 PM, selpahi notifications@github.com wrote:

Sure, when a new emergent entity is crucial to the meaning of the
predicate, then it shouldn't be turned into a plural. It's enough to
know that we generally want set places gone so the revision of specific
gismu can go smoother.

Agreed.

Of course gunma itself is the mass predicate, so it should obviously

create a mass. (Though for some reason the same reasoning doesn't seem
to apply to {cmima}. I see relatively many {cmima lo tadni} usages)

Meaning "me lo tadni"?

There are many "mass" places which would be absolutely fine as plurals,
and where a mass would just be inconvenient: misno2, lanxe2, quantity
places like xukmi2 and salta2; klesi1, jmaji1, cuntu2, etc.

Indeed, yes. I was thinking more of things like bende1. In fact I was
thinking of the several gismu in which x1 is the gunma and x2 the se gunma.

Plurals are compatible with masses, since a mass is just an individual,

so they can be used as long as the place allows "singleton plural" (a
place that can be satisfied by one or more individuals). (simxu1 is a
counter-example to this rule; it needs at least 2 referents, so a single
mass would not work, but multiple masses could simxu)

Yes.

[solpahi]

la .xorxes. cu cusku di'e

Of course gunma itself is the mass predicate, so it should obviously

create a mass. (Though for some reason the same reasoning doesn't seem
to apply to {cmima}. I see relatively many {cmima lo tadni} usages)

Meaning "me lo tadni"?

Basically, yes. I also see cmima2 used with things like comittees. The
general idea is that of "membership". This might be an abuse of {cmima}.
Without cmima2 as a true set-theoretical set, there is no longer a gismu
for that meaning, and I think there should be one, despite the relative
inutility of sets. Although maybe a lujvo would be acceptable, too;
something like cma[sel]cmi. In any case, I have no strong feelings about
{cmima}.

mi'e la selpa'i mu'o

[xorxes]

On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 8:34 PM, selpahi notifications@github.com wrote:

Of course gunma itself is the mass predicate, so it should obviously

create a mass. (Though for some reason the same reasoning doesn't seem
to apply to {cmima}. I see relatively many {cmima lo tadni} usages)

Meaning "me lo tadni"?

Basically, yes.

To me "cmima lo tadni" makes "lo tadni" into an emergent entity, rather
than just many students. That's not impossible, because these emergent
entities usually share a lot of properties with ther members, and "lo ka
tadni" can very well be one of them, but ordinarily I would think of lo
tadni as "students" more than as "a student group".

I also see cmima2 used with things like comittees.

That should be fine, since a committee is more likely gunma than se gunma,

The
general idea is that of "membership". This might be an abuse of {cmima}.
Without cmima2 as a true set-theoretical set, there is no longer a gismu
for that meaning, and I think there should be one, despite the relative
inutility of sets. Although maybe a lujvo would be acceptable, too;
something like cma[sel]cmi. In any case, I have no strong feelings about
{cmima}.

I do think "cmima" is for the general idea. For the specialized meaning a
lujvo is better (when necessary).

ro se gunma be ko'a cu cmima ko'a

ko'a gunma lo ro cmima be ko'a

mu'o mi'e xorxes