[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [jboske] 4 solutions to collective/substance

la nitcion cusku di'e

> 1. (My original solution.) We exploit the fact that any physical 
> objects in this universe are of finite cardinality, 
> This is ok if all you're referring to is the 3D physical universe. As 
> Jorge has pointed out, it collapses for populations of individuals 
> which happen to be of transfinite cardinality --- real numbers 
> themselves, for instance, which are not meaningfully a substance, 
> though I tried to finagle that they are. Such cases call for backup.

It is not only those cases that call for backup. I think that trying
to embed physics in the grammar of the language is just wrong. Why
shouldn't we be able to talk of a transfinite number of dogs, even if 
there isn't a transfinite number of dogs in our universe? Is the idea 
of a transfinite number of dogs unthinkable and thus should we make 
it unsayable in Lojban? A transfinite number of dogs is just not the 
same thing as dog Goo, and I don't see why we should not be allowed
to speculate in Lojban about what a universe with a transfinite number 
of dogs would be like, something which we can easily do in English.
The grammar we use to talk about "three solid spheres" should be the
same as the grammar we use to talk about "three dogs", even though
there aren't any solid spheres in our universe. 

> 4. The ultimate and real solution, of course, as Jordan will gloat if 
> and when he sees this, is to hang the articles and quantifiers and use 
> a predicate:
> Collective: loi ro poi selci ku'o remna
> Substance: loi ro poi nalsle ku'o remna

(I think the quantifier goes after the relative clauses.)

> In fact, I think this even allows a distinction between (my) bits of 
> substance, and And's/xod's capital-S Substance:
> capital-S Substance: loi tu'o poi nalselsle ku'o remna

I don't think I'd have a problem with that. It is just a matter of 
agreeing on what {remna} means. {loi} has nothing to do with the 
distinction, since you could equally well distinguish between

lo poi selci ku'o ro remna
lo poi nalsle ku'o ro remna

In fact, all your solutions seem to allow for this distinction, so you 
are seeing Substance as just a collective of a different set of
underlying individuals (bits of Substance as individuals instead 
of full individuals as individuals).

In general, I think I'd stick with {remna marji} for "human goo".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more