From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Wed May 31 00:00:03 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3181 ; Tue, 30 May 95 23:59:57 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Tue, 30 May 95 11:37:37 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa14363; 30 May 95 12:37 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7222; Tue, 30 May 95 07:34:56 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 8343; Tue, 30 May 1995 07:33:55 -0400 Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 07:34:04 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: masses - response to Jorge X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander Message-ID: <9505301237.aa14363@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R >I beg to disagree. {re lu'a le nanmu ku joi le ninmu ku joi le verba} >can't be "the man's ear and the woman's nose". The mass is composed of >three elements: the man, the woman and the child, and you are selecting >two of them. Neither the man's nose, nor the man's going to the market, >nor the man's grandparents are members of the mass. Otherwise, where do >you stop? Please don't invoke inalienable possession or anything like >that. Those are possessions of the mass, not its components. > >Jorge 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. lojbab