From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Thu Jun 22 23:30:43 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3568 ; Thu, 22 Jun 95 23:30:41 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Thu, 22 Jun 95 19:23:57 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa04430; 22 Jun 95 20:23 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8919; Thu, 22 Jun 95 14:35:21 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0109; Thu, 22 Jun 1995 14:28:25 -0400 Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 14:31:39 EDT Reply-To: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu Subject: Re: dying gasp of latest masses thread X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander Message-ID: <9506222023.aa04430@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R And: > 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? 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}? Do you gain anything from translating it as "the mass of all boxes" instead of the much more colloquial "some boxes"? My problem with "the mass of all boxes" is that I would use that to translate {piro loi tanxe}. > 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. It is all of it that laps thereon as far as fractionators are concerned, but it is not necessary to even mention them. If you are talking about "the waters of the Pacific Ocean", then I agree it may be wrong to say {piro lei djacu pe la pasifik} lap upon the shore. It would depend on the definition of "lap upon" more than anything else. When can you say that something laps upon something else? 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 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"? Jorge