Re: [jboske] individuation and masses (was: RE: mass, group,

[John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>]

And Rosta scripsit:
> 
> John:
> > Jorge Llambias scripsit:
> > 
> > > Sometimes we do need counting with the collective sense:
> > > {oi mi na ka'e bevri lei bi birje}, "I can't carry the 8 beers!"
> > > I could carry each of them, but not the eight as a whole 
> > 
> > Yes, certainly, inside quantification is not an issue: it can appear
> > in any of the various gadri 
> 
> I know this is the line you take, but if you can count the parts, then
> the parts have not lost their boundaries,

Not yet, no. Inner quantifiers may make little sense in some contexts;
what would work for "lei djacu", e.g.? But in other contexts they make
very good sense. All loX quantifiers are somewhat doubtful, of course.

> and if you can measure
> the cardinality then you can put intrinsic boundaries to the whole.
> In both cases you end up with properties the lack of which defines 
> masses/substance.

I don't follow this about boundaries. The mass Gold (piro loi solji)
has perfectly sharp boundaries, but is a substance just the same.

-- 
De plichten van een docent zijn divers, John Cowan
die van het gehoor ook. jcowan@reutershealth.com
--Edsger Dijkstra http://www.ccil.org/~cowan