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 m0r78Jm-00005bC; Mon, 14 Nov 94 22:48 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7648; Mon, 14 Nov 94 22:48:13 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 7645; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 22:48:11 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 8644; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 21:44:54 +0100 Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 14:18:22 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: re loi smani X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1933 Lines: 54 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 for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.