From cbmvax!uunet!math.ucla.edu!jimc Wed Jun 26 16:30:57 1991
Return-Path: <cbmvax!uunet!math.ucla.edu!jimc>
From: cbmvax!uunet!math.ucla.edu!jimc
Return-Path: <jimc@math.ucla.edu>
Message-Id: <9106261948.AA22386@euphemia.math.ucla.edu>
To: lojban-list@snark.thyrsus.com
Subject: Re: "people"... 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 25 Jun 91 13:09:42 EDT."
             <9106251709.AA10976@dino> 
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 12:48:04 +0100
Status: RO

la korant. cusku di'e:
> On a different matter, could someone please explain why "Mr. Person"
> is being used to refer to the mass-term of people (plural of person),
> as opposed to the archetypical person.
> ...
> I seem to be talking about something different from the general flow of
> conversation and wish someone would give me a clearer idea of what the
> problem is.

I always seem to get involved with vague shadows too.  I have always had
trouble to understand mass terms, maybe because I'm not from the Trobriand
Islands.  My best understanding of a "mass" is like this.  

You make a sumti from some predicate, and its referent is a set.  You
want to make a bridi relating the set as a unit [to other args].  However,
when analysed more closely you see that your bridi actually ought to
apply to a few members in extension.  But this loses the unitary nature
of the set.  So you use "loi" which simultaneously recognizes that the
bridi applies to members in extension, and to the whole set.  

Example:  "The airplane is controlled by radio".  "The airplane" its 
referent is, well, an airplane.  But check it out, the airplane is a set
of parts, only a few of which are involved with steering it, and the R.C.
box moves only one or two of these.  It's ridiculous to say "the 
horizontal tail pushrod is controlled by radio" even though that's what 
happens.  When you say "loi vinji" you make the statement about the 
airplane as a whole while explicitly recognizing that a specific one or
few of its members are involved.  

Another non-equivalent explanation is that "loi" applies to a set with
its organization whereas "lo'i" (set referent) applies to a non-organized
set.  E.g. "loi vinji" means an assembled and working airplane while
"lo'i vinji" could equally mean a pile of parts.  

Another non-equivalent explanation is with partitive objects.  "loi djacu"
means a serving or portion of water.  "lo djacu" (referent in extension)
probably means a set of water molecules in extension, while "lo'i djacu"
means the same set as a set -- could be ice or steam.  

Yet another explanation is that the speaker is not focussing on specifically
which of various possible referents is the one desired.  This fits in
with servings and portions; if you ask for "loi djacu" presumably any
serving will be satisfactory.  But this interpretation is simpler for
unitary objects like apples.  It fits poorly with the "set and parts"
interpretation.

Have I confused matters enough?

		-- jimc