From sentto-44114-14600-1025832562-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Thu Jul 04 18:29:54 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 04 Jul 2002 18:29:54 z (PDT) Received: from n29.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.85]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17QHuz-0003iJ-01 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Thu, 04 Jul 2002 18:29:53 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-14600-1025832562-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.66.98] by n29.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 Jul 2002 01:29:22 -0000 X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 5 Jul 2002 01:29:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 39682 invoked from network); 5 Jul 2002 01:29:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Jul 2002 01:29:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.48) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Jul 2002 01:29:21 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 18:29:21 -0700 Received: from 200.69.2.52 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 05 Jul 2002 01:29:21 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Jul 2002 01:29:21.0608 (UTC) FILETIME=[6394B480:01C223C3] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.2.52] X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 01:29:21 +0000 Subject: Re: [lojban] pro-sumti question Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 130 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list la pycyn cusku di'e >But, if you want to insist (as >Jordon seems to) that {le remei} means mass of the cat and the dog, then >you >are stuck with the rest of it. No. There is no reason why {le remei} can't be {piro lei re danlu}. There is no reason why the implicit {pisu'o} of {lei} has to be transferred to {le remei}. >That mass is tired if only the dog (or only >the cat) is, just as the mass chases the potman if only the dog does. That's your interpretation. The way I see it, the properties of tiredness and postman chasing do not add up that way. Just like the dog's weight is not the mass weight, the dog's tiredness is not that of the mass. >Masses >aren't as useless as sets, but they need to be treated carefully. It would be very hard to do away with masses, they are very useful. But the idea that the mass has all properties of the members (or that anything that applies to part of a mass applies automatically to the mass) is nonsense, and unfortunately very widespread in Lojban lore. >Is {ko'a joi ko'e gunma ko'a ce ko'e ce ko'i} true or >not? We'd have to agree first on the place structure of {gunma} for me to answer something that is meaningful to you. Assuming {ko'a} and {ko'e} refer to individuals, then {ko'a joi ko'e} refers to a mass of two individuals, and {ko'a broda} being true does not imply that {ko'a joi ko'e broda}. >If true then your remark backs up my point about masses being only >partial. If false then, then {loi gerku cu gunma lo'i gerku} is also >false, >against a number of basic sematic principles. I don't see how you conclude any of this. Taking {gunma} as the relationship between a mass and a set with the same members, then {piro loi gerku cu gunma lo'i broda} should be true, and therefore {pisu'o loi gerku cu gunma lo'i broda} should be true as well. {piro loi broda cu brode} always entails {pisu'o loi broda cu brode}, as long as {piro loi broda} is not the empty mass! >{gunma} means -- like most >predicates -- "is A mass" not "The complete mass" from some set. Assuming it does (even though that's not what the gi'uste says) {le gunma} is still used to refer to one (or more) of those masses from some set, not to parts of those masses from some set. Once you identify what {le gunma} is, it is that mass, not just any part of that mass. >{remei} >notice talks about the size of the set underlying, not about completeness >either. I'm not sure what you mean here. Hopefully {lo sovda 12mei} does not claim that the set of all eggs has only 12 members! {lo remei} is "a dozen", not some part of an underlying set of 12. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Will You Find True Love? Will You Meet the One? Free Love Reading by phone! http://us.click.yahoo.com/ztNCyD/zDLEAA/Ey.GAA/GSaulB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/