From araizen@newmail.net Sat Apr 21 15:11:43 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 21 Apr 2001 22:11:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 29436 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2001 22:11:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 21 Apr 2001 22:11:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fk.egroups.com) (10.1.10.47) by mta1 with SMTP; 21 Apr 2001 22:11:41 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: araizen@newmail.net Received: from [10.1.10.116] by fk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 21 Apr 2001 22:11:41 -0000 Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 22:11:37 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Three more issues Message-ID: <9bt0ip+m7t9@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2722 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 62.0.182.114 From: "Adam Raizen" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 6779 la xorxes cusku di'e > > la adam cusku di'e > > >Isn't it it an elementary point about lojbanic masses that since a > >portion of the mass of "lei so'o valsi" is a valsi, the whole mass is > >a valsi. > > It is one of the usual myths about Lojban masses, yes, but it > is false. Consider: > > le mu cukta cu ki'ogra li pimu > Each of the five books weighs 0.5 kg. > > lei mu cukta cu ki'ogra li repimu > The five books (as a whole) weigh 2.5 kg. > > That a portion of the mass weighs 0.5 kg does not entail, > imply or in any way implicate that the mass as a whole weighs > 0.5 kg. Similarly, that a portion is a word does not mean > that the whole is a word. I don't see why not. lei mu cukta cu ki'ogra ge li repimu gi li pimu The book explicitly states (chapter 6, section 3) that masses may have contradictory properties. There are (officially?) 2 properties that a lojbanic mass has: 1) the properties of its parts (what you say it doesn't have) 2) the properties that none of its parts has individually, but they have together. It would have been clearer to have different ways to express these 2 properties. If you want to contradict the book and throw out #1, that's one thing, but I think it's quite useful. How else would you say "lions live in africa", "butter is soft"? With "lo'e"? (don't you use that for "any"?) And what if I don't want to say anything about the typical one, but rather about all the individuals, without actually implying that every single one necessarily has that property (just that there's some reason to think of them all as if they did)? > >The question is about "(sel)brivla". I don't see why "lei > >so'o valsi cu selbrivla" isn't correct (parellel to "lei prenu cu > >bevri le pipno", chapter 6, example 3.2), but "le so'o valsi cu > >selbrivla" is false because neither "nu" nor "kei" is a "valsi lo > >selbri" (though it is a "valsi da"). > > That depends on the meaning of {brivla}, not on the meaning > of {valsi}. You might define the lujvo {brivla} in such a way > as to correspond with what the grammar calls a "tanru unit", but > that is not how "brivla" is used in English, brivla is just one > type of tanru unit. Not even GOhAs are called brivla, even though > they are valsi. Only gismu, lujvo and fu'ivla are brivla. Oh, and > gismu, lujvo and fu'ivla are brivla :) > I define selbrivla (what everyone else calls a brivla) to mean "valsi lo selbri". The individual components of "lei so'o valsi" are valsi, and the components together mean a selbri, so "lei so'o valsi" is a selbrivla (?). Okay, something's not right. Maybe it's cheating to combine the 2 meanings of a mass together like this. mu'o mi'e adam