Return-Path: <@SEGATE.SUNET.SE:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0sRR1B-0000YjC; Fri, 30 Jun 95 00:21 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v0.1a) with SMTP id 3C2B802D ; Thu, 29 Jun 1995 23:19:24 +0200 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 17:19:46 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: lo gunma nabmi X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1750 Lines: 46 There is already a simple way to talk about water molecules, copper atoms, rice grains, sand grains, etc. Those are: jausle, tuksle, risysle, cansle. If you want to refer to a mass of those, then {loi jausle}, {loi tuksle}, {loi risysle}, {loi cansle}. > I noticed this in trying to understand jorge's objections to my use of > lei djacu > He pointed out this could mean something other than > /a bunch of molecules of water/ > which is what I want it to mean. It could mean > /a bunch of raindrops/ > for example. (Apparently jorge thinks in lojban!) Not yet! > I would suggest that one > or more raindrops be described in lojban as > le litki bratu or also {le djacu dirgo}. > and that > lei djacu > be reserved for water considered as discrete molecules of H2O. But that is not as useful a concept as the everyday concept of water. If you say {ta djacu} with your definition, you'd be saying "that is a water molecule". That may be useful when using an electron microscope, but not most of the time for most people. When you do want to say that, you can say {ta djacu selci}, or, if you don't like so many syllables, then {ta jausle}. > IMHO the > definitions of concepts which can commonly be considered discretely or > continuously ought to be adjusted to allow for either continuous or > discrete use with lei or loi. But lei/loi already makes a different distinction. In fact, you can use {lei} as you propose, because {lei djacu} is "the mass of those I have in mind that I'm calling quantities of water", and you can think of the quantities as being molecules. The question is whether anyone who listens will understand your intent. If the context makes it clear that you are talking about molecules then there's no problem. Jorge