Message-Id: <m0sPCXA-0000YjC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Fri, 23 Jun 1995 18:24:48 +0100
Reply-To:     ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: dying gasp of latest masses thread
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Thu, 22 Jun 95 14:31:39 EDT.)
Content-Length: 2723
Lines: 70

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