Message-Id: <m0sPXn4-0000YkC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sat, 24 Jun 1995 11:50:41 -0400
Reply-To:     Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      ears and legs mass example
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1634
Lines: 37

>From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
>Subject:      Re: ears and legs
>> Imagine two people are lost in the woods, and you have reason to believe
>> they might be together.  You know one is wearing a bright blue garment.
>> You and others are looking, and you spot through the underbrush,
>> something bright blue and appropriately sized moving.  You might yell to
>> the others "I see them", even though you actually have not seen any
>> piece of any person, but merely the garment of one of the people, and
>> even though you don't actually know that the second person is with the
>> blue-garbed one.
>
>I agree with you, but you are not addressing the issue.
>
>The issue is:  can you use {re lu'a le ninmu ku joi le nanmu ku joi le
>verba} to refer to the man's ear and the man's leg?  I think that you
>can't.

I agree.  You haven't seen two individuals.  I think I was confused over
your use of lu'a in the first place.  Since we were talking about
masses, I presumed lu'o (or rather did not look up the word, and
presumed that lu'a meant the mass).

>If you are looking for the three of them that are lost in the woods, and

three???  I thought it was two.  Oh, well, I will assume a ni'o (i.e. new
 situation)

>you see the man's ear and leg, you would not say "I see two of them",
>meaning the ear and the leg, when "them" is the three people.

No.  You would say that you see "them" (i.e. {lu'o ...} or {pisu'o lu'o
...}), if the two things you happened to spot were sufficient evidence
to you that you were seeing the mass.  If you weren't sure, you might say
mi viska re lu'e lu'a le ci remna
I see 2 indications of them.

lojbab