From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Dec 16 17:50:26 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 16 Dec 2005 17:50:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1EnRD7-0000ov-B1 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 17:50:09 -0800 Received: from imo-m20.mx.aol.com ([64.12.137.1]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1EnRD5-0000om-AZ for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 17:50:09 -0800 Received: from MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com by imo-m20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r6.3.) id d.207.f45a817 (3948) for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 20:50:02 -0500 (EST) From: MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com Message-ID: <207.f45a817.30d4c8ca@wmconnect.com> Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 20:50:02 EST Subject: [lojban] Re: A Proposed Explanation of {gunma} To: lojban-list@lojban.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_207.f45a817.30d4c8ca_boundary" X-Mailer: 6.0 for Windows XP sub 52 X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) X-archive-position: 10921 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --part1_207.f45a817.30d4c8ca_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/15/2005 4:22:08 AM Central Standard Time, John E Clifford via ecartis@digitalkingdom.org writes: > Although I have at one time or another argued for > most of these positions and tried to interrelate > them, I now think that some of them are seriously > flawed and that a couple of errors pervade the > list above. > -- > they have properties that > depend upon the > and > from individuals or plurals in that they take > collective predication rather than distributive > (or individual individual predication). What do you think about the first two points? You have only listed them, AFAICT. Or should the double dash be "are"? > think that the fourth point -- that (some) masses > do the work of mass nouns is correct but that > that description of this role -- in Lojban -- is > incorrect as given above. The third > characteristic -- that a mass inherits all the > properties of its members (I used to call it a > logical sum) -- I now think rests upon some > interlocking errors. > > stevo --part1_207.f45a817.30d4c8ca_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message=20= dated 12/15/2005 4:22:08 AM Central Standard Time, John E Clifford <cliff= ord-j@sbcglobal.net> via ecartis@digitalkingdom.org writes:


Although I have at one time= or another argued for
most of these positions and tried to interrelate
them, I now think that some of them are seriously
flawed and that a couple of errors pervade the
list above.  


I think that the first two points
--


that masses differ from (pure) sets in that
they have properties that depend upon the
properties of the members
and=20

that masses differ
from ind= ividuals or plurals in that they take
collective predication rather than distributive
(or individual individual predication).   


What do you think about the first two points?  You have only listed= them, AFAICT.  Or should the double dash be "are"?

I also
think that the fourth point -- that (some) masses
do the work of mass nouns is correct but that
that description of this role -- in Lojban -- is
incorrect as given above. The third
characteristic -- that a mass inherits all the
properties of its members (I used to call it a
logical sum) -- I now think rests upon some
interlocking errors.


stevo --part1_207.f45a817.30d4c8ca_boundary-- 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.