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

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

xorxes:
> la lojbab cusku di'e
> > > >But "they" aren't still rice, but "it" is still rice - is has lost its
> > > >clear divisibility 
> > >
> > >By "they" I meant "rice pulp" and "rice flour". If rice pulp
> > >is a quantity of rice then it is rismi, if rice flour is a
> > >quantity of rice then it is rismi. That depends on the meaning
> > >of rismi, not on the meaning of loi 
> >
> >No, I think it is based on the meaning of loi. Whether those things are
> >rismi depends on what the relevant emergent properties are for the context 
> 
> My point is that they will be loi rismi in the same contexts in
> which they are lo rismi. lo/loi only indicate how they enter
> into relationships with other things 

That is true for the individuals--collective distinction, but not for
the individuals--substance distinction. Saying what "lo/loi" do and
don't indicate is silly, given that currently the meaning of "loi"
is completely up in the air. 

Even if you do want to argue as though "lei/loi = collective" were
a given, it's not going to help in discussing things with Lojbab,
because he is simply going to argue on the basis of *his* understanding
of loi, which is some kind of conflation of Substance and Collective.
And the result will be wasted discussion.

> > > >Any broda can be considered a substance. Some are not usefully 
> >considered
> > > >a substance, but all MAY be 
> > >
> > >Yes, but that does not call for a substance gadri 
> >
> >I'm not sure I am calling for a substance gadri. That's the problem with
> >these silly arguments; I've forgotten what the point was several days ago 
> 
> We were distinguishing the Collective and Substance meanings
> that loi/lei are claimed to have. John (and presumably you as
> well) argue that loi/lei has a blend of both meanings. I'm
> arguing that Substance is incompatible with inner quantifiers 
> I also argue that anything describable as {loi broda} in one
> relationship can be described as {lo broda} in the same
> situation but participating in another relationship. In other
> words, lo/loi do not describe the things, they only indicate
> how the things enter into relationships with other things,
> whether individually or all together 

In other words, your argument is:

1. Inner quantifiers are incompatible with Substance. (True.)
2. {lei/loi PA} is grammatical and presumably meaningful.
3. Therefore, {lei/loi} mustn't be Substance.
4. This leaves the way open for {lei/loi} to just do Collective,
as per standard piano-carrying examples.

That argument seems pretty unassailable to me, and I will join
you in it.

--And.