Message-Id: <m0sOW0g-0000YjC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Wed, 21 Jun 1995 16:04:53 EDT
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: loi djacu
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 5154
Lines: 129

> >Yes, I would take any {lo djacu} to be significantly larger than an
> >individual molecule. If I say {mi pinxe lo djacu}, "I drink a quantity
> >of water", that clearly doesn't refer to a few molecules.
>
> Maybe true for pinxe, because pinxe has implicatures about the nature of
> x2 - including that it is liquid - and liquidity is not a property of a
> single molecule.  But there are other predicates that are true about lo
> djacu even with only one molecule.  (djacu vimcu - to remove the water
> from the substrate, would be true if there was only one molecule of
> water, and you removed it.)

Maybe, although I can't really think of any reason why I would
use {djacu} instead of {djacu selci} when talking about molecules.

> And you wouldn't say "mi pinxe *pa* lo djacu" or any other distinct
> number, unless you had counted molecules (or some other selci in your
> world-view) of water.

I would use {pa djacu} in many situations. I don't think I would count
molecules in any situation. I don't agree that {pa djacu} is the same
as {pa djacu selci}. The first is "one quantity of water", the other
is "one molecule of water".

> Because of the nature of the quantifiers, I would tend NOT to say "mi
> pinxe *lo* djacu" instead of "loi".  And I would wonder if you meant to
> imply something if I heard you doing so.

For all the gismu of the form "x1 is some quantity of...", {lo broda}
and {loi broda} are practically the same to me.

> I can't easily give examples in Lojban, unless I want to write
> paragraphs.

I wish you would! One paragraph of Lojban would be worth much more
than ten posts in English.  :)


> Generally with water, we aren't drinking pure distilled water - but
> doesn't veridical "lo" imply purity?

Not at all. We don't have to do substance analysis before talking in
Lojban, much like in other languages.

> But I would understand you if you
> said "lo djacu".  "loi djacu is safer, in that a mass substance that
> displays the relevant properties of water (to a context of drinking)
> might have a few molecules of something else in it.

So what if it does? You can't say {lo gerku} if the thing that displays
the relevant propeties has a few molecules of something else in it?


> Using masses in Lojban sentences admittedly means that truth-functional
> evaluation becomes very difficult.

It shouldn't, in my opinion. At least not any more difficult than using
the individuating articles.

>"loi cinfo cu xabju la friko.  .ije
> loi cinfo cu na'e xabju la friko"

True. Just like {lo cinfo cu xabju la friko ije lo cinfo cu na'e xabju
la friko}.

(Notice that {na'e xabju} means "other than lives" and not "doesn't live".
For example, if some lions hunt in Africa, then it is true that
some lions other-than-live in Africa, i.e. there is an other-than-living
relationship between some lions and Africa.)

It is also true that {loi cinfo cu xabju na'ebo la friko}, "some lions
live in other-than-Africa".

> and I wouldn't argue too strongly with
> "loi cinfo cu na xabju la friko" if the context indicated a mass of
> lions that necessarily must include lions in zoos.

There are zoos in Africa too, aren't there? That sentence would
have to be false in most contexts. It says "it is not the case that
some lions live in Africa".

What _is_ true is {loi cinfo naku xabju la friko}, "some lions don't
live in Africa".

> Almost any statement
> about a mass is true, given the right context.

No statement and its negation can be true at the same time, (excluding
fuzziness, which is not what masses are about anyway).

> >How can it be true? A bucket of water has lots and lots of hydrogen
> >and oxygen atoms. It is false that "a bucket of water has exactly
> >two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom".
>
> Only "probably false".  How much water must be in a bucket for it to be
> a "bucket of water"?

Almost full. In any case, much much more than a molecule.

> It is not clear.  In some contexts, you might have
> only a cupful of water in the bucket, and might call it a "bucket of
> water" especially if there is another bucket that contains a contrasting
> substance (oil?).

You might call it a bucket of water even if it is empty if it is used
for water, but that's totally beside the point. We are not talking
about the bucket itself, but about the water, quantified in "buckets".
If you knew Esperanto, I could tell you that it is the difference
between "sitelo de akvo" = "a bucket of (characterized by) water"
and "sitelo da akvo" = "water in quantity 'a bucket of', a bucketful
of water".

Anyway, I would never say that a bucket of water has exactly two
hydrogen and one oxygen atom, under any interpretation of "a bucket
of water".

> Now let us say we have two buckets, and I put one molecule of water in
> one, and one molecule of mercury in the other.  If you know I did this
> miraculous feat, you would understand if I asked you to give me "the
> bucket of water".

Yes, but I don't see what this shows.

>  We have created an (albeit highly artificial) context
> wherein a single molecule of water displays the relevant properties of a
> mass of water.

What relevant properties?

Jorge