Return-Path: Received: from kantti.helsinki.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0rIp6n-00007DC; Sat, 17 Dec 94 04:42 EET Received: from fiport.funet.fi (fiport.funet.fi [128.214.109.150]) by kantti.helsinki.fi (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id EAA19022 for ; Sat, 17 Dec 1994 04:42:53 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (MAILER@SEARN) by FIPORT.FUNET.FI (PMDF V4.3-7 #2494) id <01HKQF44OW280002ES@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>; Sat, 17 Dec 1994 02:27:12 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3092; Fri, 16 Dec 1994 21:28:02 +0100 Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 15:26:31 -0500 From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: fractionators In-reply-to: <199412160019.AA21882@nfs1.digex.net> from "ucleaar" at Dec 15, 94 06:55:48 pm Sender: Lojban list To: Veijo Vilva Reply-to: Logical Language Group Message-id: <01HKQFIQAQ4K0002ES@FIPORT.FUNET.FI> X-Envelope-to: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: Lojban List MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 2755 Lines: 75 mi pu cusku di'e > > "pisu'o" is about as close to an unspecified value as you can get: > > "some part, more than none, of the whole". It could mean 1% or 99%, la .and. cusku di'e > or 100%, I take it. Yes. mi pu cusku di'e > > the only excluded value is 0%. So although formally the fractionator > > is default, in practice it might as well be unspecified. la .and. cusku di'e > OK. Why, then, do we need fractionators at all? We don't have them > with le or lo, do we? "vi viska lo/le prenu" does propel us into > long discussions about how much of the person or how much of > each of the people I saw. I take it that your last sentence lacks a negation, and should be "doesn't propel us". Right enough. The difficulty is fundamental, and depends on your view of masses. Note that this has nothing to do with the "porridgey blob" view, which is unambiguously the correct one (as against the "blurred details" view), this is a finer split. Is what is done by a part, done by the whole? If so, fractionators are useless. If, on the other hand, only what involves participation by all the parts is done by the whole, then fractionators are not useless, because they enable us to say that "some fraction of the in-mind mass" did such-and-such. In fact, there is a tension in Lojban between individuals and masses. The standard formulation is that masses result from the blobification of individuals; but there is an alternative formulation that says that everything is really a mass, and "le/lo" is just a contrivance which allows us to ignore the mass nature of things when such an attitude is useful. "mi", e.g. is really a mass, but we feel free to treat ourselves as individuals when this is handy, and assert that "I did such-and-such" rather than "Some part of the me-blob did such-and-such." I'm none too clear on this topic myself, but I hope someone else (possibly me-sub-T+1) will be. > A mass is a singularity: why not treat it like other singulars, > e.g. "pa lo"? Because it may be useful to treat separate portions, thus: le re nanmu cu citka [pisu'o] lei pa plise The two men eat part(s) of the one apple. vs. [pisu'o] lei pa plise cu se citka le re nanmu A part of the one apple is eaten by each of the men. The first is straightforward, the latter impossible or disgusting. > I don't see why we have to say anything about 'fractionators' > at all. The historical answer is that syntax outran semantics. We devised a syntax whereby every sumti could be preceded by a number, and then set to devising meanings for that number on the part of each sumti type. -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.