Re: [jboske] Collective: definition

[Invent Yourself <xod@thestonecutters.net>]

On Mon, 23 Dec 2002, Jordan DeLong wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 11:00:46AM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Dec 2002, Jordan DeLong wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 09:46:48PM +1100, Nick Nicholas wrote:
> > > > (resend)
> > >
> > > didn't get the first...hrm
> > >
> > > [...]
> > > > Similarly, you can say
> > > >
> > > > mi citka pi ro loi rismi
> > > >
> > > > and mean half now and half later. Bzzt, your collective instantly
> > > > evaporates. you've split the rice in two, you're not eating it all
> > > > together at the same time.
> > >
> > > Ok, you had me till here. I think this is bogus.
> >
> > I think so too. Nick has forgotten what a collective is. In summary, it
> > exists to refer to properties that do NOT exist by the individuals.
>
> But lojbanmasses already do that.


They do too much.


> > First, I refer you both to
> > http://www.thestonecutters.net/xod/lojban/jboske.html
>
> Your definition of collective is a lot less clear than the definition
> of lojbanmass in the book.


It is possible that I cannot help you.


> > Next, assume that 2 men cannot carry the piano.
>
> Heh. Ok, but if 3 men are carrying the piano together, each of
> them individually *is* carrying some amount of the weight of the
> piano.



Sure, but the ability to carry A piano is an emergent property of the 3.
We are discussing pianos, not piano shards or carrots.

Perhaps you might prefer to consider the emergent property of 2
appropriate adults being required to procreate, since there is no
conflation between infants and sperm cells as there might be between a
third of a piano and an actual one.



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