Message-Id: <m0sOKMd-0000YlC@xiron>
Date:         Wed, 21 Jun 1995 03:24:54 -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:      loi djacu
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 6256
Lines: 136

>> We're getting to the
>> nitty-gritty about masses here, in that the components must display the
>> relevant properties of the mass (whatever they are, which may be
>> situationally dependent) in order to "be" the mass.  For example
>> "loi djacu cu cilmo" implies as a component a mass of water which is
>> significantly larger than an individual molecule, and in liquid form.
>
>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.)

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.

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.

>> i.e.  Lojban "loi", which seems to
>> be myopically singular of the sort you are describing.  One thing that
>> seems to be forgotten is that loi broda displays all *relevant*
>> properties of a broda.  If the claim about loi broda can be accomplished
>> using only the nose of 1 member of broda, then that nose is sufficient
>> to stand for the mass.
>
>What is a relevant property?  Is weight a relevant property?  Is size?
>One problem is that you use loi broda in English as if it was specific,
>but it isn't.  How can you say that some part of the mass of broda
>displays all the relevant properties of a broda.  Of which broda?  It is
>much better to give examples in Lojban, because discussing in English
>leads to a lot of confusion.

I can't easily give examples in Lojban, unless I want to write
paragraphs.  I think that is one area we are having problems
communicating.  Too much of Lojban semantics is context-dependent,
especially in the issues we seem to be talking about lately, to argue
them without presenting a more complete context.

"Relevant properties" are those properties relevant to the context.  The
molecular structure of water is not relevant to discussions of drinking
it.  Generally with water, we aren't drinking pure distilled water - but
doesn't veridical "lo" imply purity?  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.

Using masses in Lojban sentences admittedly means that truth-functional
evaluation becomes very difficult.  "loi cinfo cu xabju la friko.  .ije
loi cinfo cu na'e xabju la friko" 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.  Almost any statement
about a mass is true, given the right context.

>With the other interpretation, they are both true:  "there is one thing
>and there is some part of the mass of humans such that the thing is head
>of the part of the mass", and "there are three things and there is some
>part of the mass of humans such that each thing is head of the part of
>the mass".

With quantifier "pisu'o" on masses, this seems correct to me.

>With my preferred interpretation they say "there is one (and only one)
>thing that is a head of some part of the mass of humans" and "there are
>three (and only three) things which are head of some part of the mass of
>humans".  Both false, since there are millions of things that are a head
>of some part of the mass of humans.  The reversed claims would be both
>true {loi remna cu se stedu pada/cida}.  "There is some part of the mass
>of humans that has one/three heads".

This seems less correct, especially if you are playing the prenex game.
Your translation seems to be avoiding exporting the mass to the prenex.

i.e.
da poi stedu ku loi remna goi ko'a zo'u pada cu stedu ko'a
would seem to match your "true" translatiion

>There is a problem only if you translate {loi remna} as "the mass of
>humans", when it only means "some humans".

Depends on the context as to which it means.

>> Compare the myopic singular mass of water:  "Water has (exactly) two
>> hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom".
>
>True only if by "water" you mean "a water molecule". False if you mean
>"a quantity of water".

Isn't a molecule of water a quantity of water?

>> Is that true for a bucket of
>> water?
>
>No.
>
>> Yes and no.
>
>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"?  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?).

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

>> >No, because the default filler is not {da} but {zo'e}, which has lots of
>> >wonderful properties.  (Very lo'e-like now that I think of it, great
>> >that the vowels agree!)
>>
>> It wasn't accidental %^)
>
>I think it was, because you seem to say {lo'e} is like {zu'i}. I think
>that it is much more like {zo'e}.

Originally zo'e encompassed both zo'e and zu'i.  It was a later
refinement that said that zu'i had some properties different from zo'e.
But zo'e was the word commonly known and in use, and was kept for the
more common usage.

lojbab