Date:  Thu, 11 Dec 1997 15:45:11 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199712112045.PAA01774@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Organization: University of Central Lancashire
Subject:      Re: semisummary: countability
X-To:         LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 2449
X-From-Space-Date: Thu Dec 11 15:45:24 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

[mostly all quote and no content, this]

Jorge:
> And:
> >{pi su`o lu mi klama li'u} and {pi su`o lo'u mi pi ku klama ka cu
> >le'u} have sense and selmaho.
>
> Yes.
>
> >{pi su`o zo sp} doesn't.
>
> Actually, if it's grammatical then it does, and it's a name. I think
> that by definition, anything zo-quotable is a valsi.
> The question we're trying to answer is whether anything
> that is valsi be bau la lojban must be zo-quotable.
>
> >I also think that {pi su`o zoi x. she has sp x.} is wordage, but
> >not {pi ro zoi x. she has sp x.}. But it is notoriously hard to
> >reason about these things.
>
> Especially because sp could become an English word anytime
> without you noticing it. It could be something like cd.

Excuse my bowing out of this discussion... It's taking it
in a different direction - about the nature of words -
which though interesting is not where I was trying to get
to.

>  >> I would want {ro da poi valsi cu cmima lo'i valsi} to be true.
> >> "Every x that is a word is a member of a set of words."
> >
> >If you applied that to {djacu}, it would make {lo`i djacu}
> >infinite, even though there is only a finite amount of water.
>
> Well, mathematically speaking, if there is a finite number of
> water molecules then there is a finite number of collections
> of them, even if you count different arrangements as different
> collections. But yes, the cardinality of {lo'i djacu} would
> indeed be quite large.
>
> It is not clear that there is only a finite amount of water, though.
> Is yesterday's water the same as today's?
>
> In any case, what I think that you're pointing out is that some water
> would belong to many of the members of {lo'i djacu}, whereas
> the members of {lo'i valsi} would be more independent.
>
> >Is that desirable? (Mind you, I think it's inevitable.)
>
> I don't see a problem with it.
>
> >I think I might prefer: {ro da poi ke`a me/du pa valsi cu
> >cmima lo`i valsi}.
>
> Hmmm... but {lei ci valsi cu cmima lo'i valsi} would also be true,
> no? Wouldn't they be memberage?
>
>  >Anyway, I'm coming to think that the "single-word option", where
> >{pi ro lei ci valsi cu valsi} is false (even though {pi ro lei
> >ci djacu cu djacu} is true) is probably a bit more straightforward.
>
> I think it is, though the other doesn't seem to be internally
> inconsistent. At least I can't find an unavoidable inconsistency.
>
> co'o mi'e xorxes

I agree with everything you say here.

--And