From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Sat Jun 24 00:38:36 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3579 ; Sat, 24 Jun 95 00:38:33 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Fri, 23 Jun 95 17:33:25 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa10867; 23 Jun 95 18:33 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 6376; Fri, 23 Jun 95 13:31:06 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 7704; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 13:24:29 -0400 Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 18:24:48 +0100 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: dying gasp of latest masses thread To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu In-Reply-To: (Your message of Thu, 22 Jun 95 14:31:39 EDT.) Message-ID: <9506231833.aa10867@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R Lojbab: > Before we leave Jorge's example, though, I want to note that the clear > way to convey that one is conceiving of the red thing as part of a mass > which blanu is "la'e ta cu blanu". ??? To me that entails that ta (i.e. {lahe zo ta}) is something that has a referent. A blue and red striped ball doesn't have a referent. Jorge: > > The mass of all boxes is in my study, but, even though my wife's > > complaints allege otherwise, it is not the case that all of the > > mass of all boxes is in my study. > How would you write the first proposition in Lojban? {luo ro tanxe cu nenri le mi kumfa}. > Would it be {loi tanxe cu nenri le mi kumfa}? If yes, does it > say anything different from {pisu'o loi tanxe cu nenri le mi kumfa}? The current rule is that those two are the same. Are they different from {luo ro tanxe cu nenri le mi kumfa}? Well, yes if {mi viska lua pa cukta} is different from {mi viska pi suo lua pa cukta}, and no if they're the same. > Do you gain anything from translating it as "the mass of all boxes" > instead of the much more colloquial "some boxes"? I would translate {loi tanxe} as "some boxage". > My problem with "the mass of all boxes" is that I would use that to > translate {piro loi tanxe}. I'd english that as "the whole of the mass of all boxes". > > Similarly, the Pacific Ocean > > laps upon the shores of Sydney harbour, but it is not the case that > > all of the Pacific Ocean laps thereon. > This presents no problem, since "the Pacific Ocean" is an individual. I think I mustn't know how to tell a mass from an individual. > It is all of it that laps thereon as far as fractionators are > concerned Surely not. It is not the case that the whole of the Pacific is in (or laps upon) Sydney harbour. > For something to be inside a room, it is usually required that > all its physical parts, or most of them, be there. For something > to be seen, it is not required that all its physical parts be > seen. Those are part of the definition of "be inside" and "see", > irrespective of whether the arguments are individuals or masses > of individuals. I basically agree. There are lots of predicates that don't care whether their sumti is the whole of something or a portion of something. This is why I don't want to force fractionators on {lei}. I now accept that {pisuo loi} is okay as a default. > > I would say that the mass of all boxage is in the next room. > I wouldn't. Only a tiny fraction of it is there. Unless we are > using "is" differently. Do you mean "nenri" or do you mean > "is present"? I mean that the next room is stuzi or se zvati be luo ro tanxe. While luo ro tanxe is arguably nenri, it would at best be misleading to claim that. --- And