From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Sun Jun 18 00:05:27 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3452 ; Sun, 18 Jun 95 00:05:24 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Sun, 18 Jun 95 09:30:42 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa16553; 18 Jun 95 10:30 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8497; Sun, 18 Jun 95 05:28:02 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5729; Sun, 18 Jun 1995 05:28:01 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 18:04:45 EDT Reply-To: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu Subject: Re: bits & pieces to Jorge on quantifiers X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander Message-ID: <9506181030.aa16553@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R And: > For something to be blanu its colour must be within a fuzzily defined > region of colour space. Yes, but that was not my point. Suppose I point to a red thing and say {ta blanu}. Now, I'm conceptualizing that red thing as part of a mass that contains also some blue things. Since I'm pointing at part of the mass, I'm pointing at the mass, and since part of the mass is blue, then the mass is blue. Which would mean that I'm perfectly right in saying {ta blanu} when I point to a red thing. I don't think that's how masses should work. > And then if you succeed in finding a way in which L, J.C. and my sock > form a mass (e.g. on the grounds of their constituting the examplage > in our discussion) Right, that makes sense to me: {la lojbab joi la iulius kaesar joi le do smoka cu se casnu mi'o} > then you may claim that it satisfies the criteria > for being a rorci be lo jbobau. No! Just because we talked about it, and a component of it is a rorci, doesn't in any sense make it a rorci. > While that doesn't strike me as a > likely move, I cannot see that there are clear reasons for saying such > a claim would be false. Because the mass entity {le se casnu be mi'o} is not a rorci. Only some component of it is. Properties are not automatically inherited by the mass from the components. > > Is {le solri ku joi le lunra} a (the) member of that set? > [Draws breath for foolhardy/foolish answer...] > Yes and no; or rather: sort of. It satisfies some but not all > criteria for being a member of that set. It is sort-of a member > of that set. What is the cardinality of a set with infinitely (uncountably many, in fact) sort-of members? > > > > {lei ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno} means > > > > something very different than {le ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno}. > The {lei} version says the man-age is carrier of the piano - doesn't > specify number of events. We are using "event" differently. I meant "relationship". The bridi describes only one single relationship. > The {le} version says man1 is carrier of the p, man2 is, and man3 is. > Again, no specification of the number of events. I meant that the bridi describes three relationships. I was using "event" to mean "claimed relationship". I'm not sure what you are using it for. > How do you get "some mass of broda" and "a certain mass of broda"? {loi broda} and {lei broda}. Just like {pisu'o lo'i broda} is a subset of the set of all broda (and therefore it is "some set of broda") so is {pisu'o loi broda} a submass of the mass of all broda (thus "some mass of broda"). > I want {lei} to mean "a certain (thing which I describe as a) mass of", > and {loi} to mean "some mass of". Then it's not covered by {loe}. That's what they mean! How come we are arguing? :) But notice that if {loi tanxe} means "some mass of boxes", then you can't conclude, from knowing that I need some mass of boxes and that there is some mass of boxes in the other room, that the mass of boxes in the other room is the one that I need. Jorge