[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [jboske] CON: Substance is not Collective (was: Unique == Misterhood? (was: lo'e gadri: can we converge towards aresolution?))

At 11:48 AM 12/19/02 -0500, Invent Yourself wrote: 
On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, Robert LeChevalier wrote:
> ...we don't necessarily presume that pimu le djacu has the relevant
> properties, whereas we presume that any fractional portion of lei djacu
> that we might refer to itself displays the relevant emergent properties
> of the whole.

We presume this with lei djacu, but not lei pipno bevri. This shows that
the property of which you write is a property specific to certain selbri,
and not all things marked with lei.

I think it applies to lei pipno bevri as well. We would not likely use lei mu pipno bevri if pa pipno bevri could carry the piano by himself. But lei mu pipno bevri can still work if, say, we are idiotically trying to carry the piano for a mile, and le bevri switch off so that any given time only three are actually carrying.

The more common instances of this are the sports team, wherein nine plus a few substitutes of a baseball team roster numbering in the twenties can play and win a game, and we say that the team wins. Or the painting company that paints the house, even though the supervisor never lifts a paint brush.

lojbab

--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org