From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Mon Jun 26 00:24:17 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3595 ; Mon, 26 Jun 95 00:24:15 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Sat, 24 Jun 95 15:51:39 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa23790; 24 Jun 95 16:51 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9663; Sat, 24 Jun 95 11:49:24 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 7904; Sat, 24 Jun 1995 11:49:24 -0400 Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 11:50:41 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: ears and legs mass example X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander Message-ID: <9506241651.aa23790@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R >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