Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0r66NC-00005bC; Sat, 12 Nov 94 02:31 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1216; Sat, 12 Nov 94 02:31:30 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 1212; Sat, 12 Nov 1994 02:31:30 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6318; Sat, 12 Nov 1994 01:28:21 +0100 Date: Fri, 11 Nov 1994 19:32:59 EST Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: Outside quantifiers on masses To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Content-Length: 941 Lines: 21 > Jorge says they are confusing, and he is right, but they are not utterly > useless. Although a mass has all the properties of its components, it also > has some emergent properties, and the level of emergence may appear at > some given level of the mass. Does it have all the properties of each component? If I eat an apple, am I eating the whole mass of apples? If yes, what would be the difference between eating the whole mass and eating half the mass? The confusion came from there. I think it is false that "the mass has all the properties of each one of its components". Also, is there any reason why {lei} shouldn't have a {piroi} default quantifier, so that it is +specific? > Consider that mass as a mass of cells. 10% of a person is a dead person, > but 100% of that mass is alive; 90% may or may not be alive. I don't see why 10% of a person is a dead person, and I don't understand what the example shows, either. Jorge