From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Message-Id: <199411141830.AA27968@access2.digex.net>
Subject: Re: re loi smani
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 13:30:22 -0500 (EST)
Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net (Logical Language Group)
In-Reply-To: <199411112333.AA19484@nfs2.digex.net> from "bob@GNU.AI.MIT.EDU" at Nov 11, 94 12:06:49 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24beta]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length:       1886
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Mon Nov 14 13:30:34 1994
X-From-Space-Address: lojbab

Bob writes about the creatures of "loi": I agree with his central points,
but disagree with a few peripheral ones:

> All parts or manifestations of the mass must be fairly similar in some
> important way.  Thus, it makes sense to speak of {loi mlatu}, but it
> makes less sense, nowadays, to speak of {loi jubme} since tables vary
> so much.

I think that "loi jubme" makes perfect sense.  It is true that it has some
contradictory properties, but so do many other things.  What color is
"loi mlatu"?  Answer: any color you like.  It is red, or brown, or blue,
or black, or white, or whatever.

The only thing that the members of {lo'i jubme} >have< to have in common
is that of being supported by legs or pedestal, by virtue of the place
structure.  It's perfectly plausible to go into a furniture store and say:

	mi viska loi jubme
	I see tables.

even if the tables are four-legged, three-legged, or pedestal-support.

> Incidentally, {loi matne} is *not* a mass consisting of *all* butter
> as someone said in a recent posting; nor is {loi tanxe} a mass
> consisting of all boxes.  Both are parts of the mass of all (as
> defined by the current universe of the discourse).

Correct.  "piro loi matne" and "piro loi tanxe" do that job.

> Now let's return to Mr. Cat:
> 
>     .i mi viska loi mlatu
> 
> Suppose I see another cat!?  I say again,
> 
>     .i bi'u mi viska loi mlatu
>     [New information] I see part of the mass of those which really are cats.
> 
> Now I have seen two manifestations of Mr. Cat.
> 
> Surely, it makes sense to say:
> 
>     .i mi viska re loi mlatu
>     I see two manifestations of Mr. Cat.
>     I see two parts of the mass of all cats.

No. For that, you need:

	mi viska [ro] le re loi mlatu
	I see [all-of] the two parts-of-the-mass-of-all cats.

-- 
John Cowan		sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.