Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 01:29:47 -0500 From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199412020629.AA17622@access3.digex.net> Subject: Re: Some thoughts on Lojban gadri Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Fri Dec 2 01:29:51 1994 X-From-Space-Address: lojbab LL>What remains doubtful in my mind is the extent to which component LL>properties can be attributed to various portions of the mass which are not LL>grouped componentwise. On a straightforward reading, the number of legs LL>that "pisu'o loi ractu" has can be anything from zero to 4 * N, where there LL>are N rabbits in the universe, since "loi" is -specific and simply asserts LL>that LL>>some< portion of the rabbity-blob has a given number of legs. Maybe LL>there is really no property inheritance from parts to wholes at all, and LL>--More-- LL>the belief that there was came from the insufficiently appreciated LL>non-specificness of "loi". I think property inheritance works the otther way - from whole to part - in masses. The smallest possible component of loi djacu is that which exhibits all relevant properties of water. The question of relevance is of course context dependent - the smallest component of loi du be mi that can hold a pencil is a finger. The smallest that can talk is my respiratory system etc. In context, either of these can represent Mr. Me. For arbitrary instances of Mr. Rabbit, I would normally presume that such smallest components have 4 legs and 2 ears, unless Mr. Rabbit is in my stew %^). LL>But if so, then the quantifier "piro" proposed by Jorge for "lei" won't LL>work in the way we expect. "lei re prenu", viz. "la alis. joi la djordj." LL>has four legs, and the notion that if Alice is small and George is big, LL>then the mass is both small and big, breaks down. Alice-joi-George would LL>have to be compared to other masses-of-two-persons, not to individual LL>properties of individual persons. I thought I was the one that proposed this - a long time ago. The archetype of lei is the two men carrying a log (together) across the field, in which case you WANT the default quantifier to be the entire mass rather than a portion. On the other hand, I gues the "Relevant portion for context" could suffice here too - the smallest relevant portion just happens to be "all". But this seems to be stretching things. I have no problem with "lei re remna" having 4 legs as a default for most remna pairs that I know. lojbab