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

[Invent Yourself <xod@thestonecutters.net>]

On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, Jordan DeLong wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 03:15:10AM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, Jordan DeLong wrote:
> >
> > > Any clarifcations which are made should be just that---we can't and
> > > shouldn't change things so that "loi djacu" is meaningless and no longer
> > > means bare "water" or whatever crap xod was pushing.
> >
> > What a difference a few hours makes. Before, you were insisting that le
> > djacu can refer to any amount of water...what then do you want lei djacu
> > to mean? Other than reflecting the peculiarities of English, what are the
> > qualities exhibited by an individual glass of water which are not enjoyed
> > by "some" water? Or vice versa?
>
> But "le djacu" *can* refer to any amount of water. "lei djacu" is
> a lojbanmass of those individual amounts. A single "le djacu" is
> only a mass in the english sense of "mass nouns" and whatnot.
>
> So, if I have 3 bottles of water, they can be individually "le
> djacu" or massively "lei djacu". Likewise, if I'm talking about
> the 7 oceans, they can be individually "le ze djacu" or lojbanmassively
> "lei ze djacu".


I agree with this. What I object to is calling a single glass of water lei
djacu because of its divisibility; the "some water" gloss. Again, Jorge's
posts were so clear that I can only repeat what he said.




-- 
// if (!terrorist)
// ignore ();
// else
collect_data ();