From @gate.demon.co.uk,@uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Wed May 31 22:30:46 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3203 ; Wed, 31 May 95 22:30:41 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Wed, 31 May 95 01:09:26 GMT Received: from gate.demon.co.uk by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa15064; 31 May 95 2:08 +0100 Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by gate.demon.co.uk id aa16040; 30 May 95 18:39 GMT-60:00 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9134; Tue, 30 May 95 13:36:36 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3372; Tue, 30 May 1995 13:08:37 -0400 Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 13:11:51 EDT Reply-To: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu Subject: Re: masses - response to Jorge X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander Message-ID: <9505301839.aa16040@gate.demon.co.uk> Status: R la lojbab cusku di'e > Example: You are approaching a corner, and you see as you approach, > sticking from behind the corner, a man's ear and a woman's nose, but no > other identifiable part of their bodies. You also can hear from their > conversation that there is a child present. In this case, then, you can > say that "mi viska re lu'a le nanmu ku joi le ninmu ku joi le verba" and > mean precisely that you see the man's ear and the woman's nose, since in > fact that is what you actually DO see. From the components (I like > "portions" better in some contexts, like this one), you infer properties > of the whole. To you the observer, the ear IS the man and the nose IS > the woman. I agree with that, you are seeing two of them, the man and the woman. If you only see the man's ear and the man's leg, but nothing of the woman or the child, then you are seeing one of them, not two of them. You'd say {mi viska pa lu'a le nanmu ku joi le ninmu ku joi le verba}, so your example agrees with what I'm saying. Jorge