RE: [jboske] Nick on propositionalism &c. (was: RE: Digest Number 134

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

Lojbab:
> At 11:01 PM 12/28/02 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
> >John:
> > > And Rosta scripsit:
> > >
> > > > So what do you think is the difference in meaning between
> > > > "the whole of X" (as distinct from "every part of X") and just
> > > > "X"?
> > >
> > > Why, the obvious one. I drink water (loi djacu) every day, but I do
> > > not drunk the whole of Water (piro loi djacu) every day: that would
> > > imply that I drink the ocean dry. The implicit quantifier "pisu'o"
> > > is motivated by sentences such as these
> >
> >You are being perversely confusing here 
> >
> >You drink {pisu'o loi djacu} = part of the mass of water 
> >You do not drink every part of the mass of water 
> >
> >If you drink the mass of water, then you probably drink every part
> >of it 
> 
> Why? In English, if I drink a glass of water, I do not guarantee that 
> every molecule of hydrogen dioxide has moved from the glass to my gullet 

You need to understand what pragmatics is, which we personify as
Grice. I would have hoped that in these discussions we could take it 
for granted that we all understand this.

If you drink a glass of water, then there is none left once you
have drunk it. What qualifies as 'none left' is determined by
ordinary criteria of relevance. 

> >But if you touch the mass of water, then you probably
> >touch just part of it. Likewise, if I eat Nick then I probably eat
> >(almost) every part of him,
> 
> If I eat the chicken, I probably leave the bones behind. If I were 
> cannibalistic, I would probably do the same with Nick 

The point is that it is a predicate-specific property how much of
the sumti is affected. For some predicates the amount affected is
"approximately all relevant bits".

> > but if I touch Nick then I probably
> >just touch part of him 
> >
> >The mass of all water is just like any individual. For some
> >predicates to be predicated of an individual they must be predicated
> >of every part; for others they must be predicated of just some
> >part 
> >
> >Your reasoning is based on (a) deliberately failing to distinguish
> >the mass from part of the mass, and (b) taking {pi ro} to mean
> >"every part of", which we have already agreed to be error 
> 
> Why? If it doesn't mean every, then use pida'a 

Does pimu mean "1 part in every 2 of", or "a half of"?

--And.