From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Dec 15 11:23:50 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 15 Dec 2005 11:23:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1EmyhR-0004So-Pp for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 11:23:33 -0800 Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.197]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1EmyhQ-0004Sg-1B for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 11:23:33 -0800 Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 68so427846wri for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 11:23:30 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=XYtr3gE/aNOqP39KE5SLQzElX4GvI/Iga+6SQrKGi9XyT6a/xflYEjgtTXtdktfFsVflk6KhLVmu6C58+6FWZHvJkuMyXtTJV1/t5dEgzK1PYlxr2HczAUgakBpqpboTH04s0aAwZv362et4z73CRT7LRReBy6FwFACnppARnuc= Received: by 10.54.67.6 with SMTP id p6mr2706214wra; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 11:23:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.54.126.1 with HTTP; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 11:23:30 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <925d17560512151123i1c08e37boac33ce3c9f373bed@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 16:23:30 -0300 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: A Proposed Explanation of {gunma} In-Reply-To: <20051215185533.9048.qmail@web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline References: <20051215182629.GL3616@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <20051215185533.9048.qmail@web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 10898 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On 12/15/05, John E Clifford wrote: > > Yes, that would be nice. I assume that he > objects to the reification that seems to be > involved in the use of a term like "bunch." But > the *entity* is inessential so long as whatever > we are talking about has a relation like "in" > ("among" in McKay) with all the relevant > properties. I think McKay would argue that bunches are yet another form of "singularism". In his second chapter, "Against singularism", he clearly states that plural language does not presuppose the truth of the basic mereological principle: "whenever some things exist, their fusion exists". Bunches, as you have defined them, do presuppose this basic principle. mu'o mi'e xorxes To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.