In a message dated 7/4/2002 12:43:29 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:>On {remei} as a solution, note also that {remei} refers to a mass and thus As you know, even when I agree with your criticisms of it (as I do pretty much here), I am obligated to work by the baseline. Hence the implicit quantifier on masses is {pisu'o}. Now, to be sure, the implicit external quantifier on {le} is {ro}, so we are referring to all the dyadic masses I have in mind, but that is presumably just the one composed of the dog(s) and the cat(s). But that does NOT mean we are referring to the WHOLE of that mass. Absent some specific indication, we are dealing {pisu'o}ness. I am not perfectly sure that {piro} gets what I want (or, rather, avoids the one-tired-dog-case), but without it, the problem clearly remains. <As for the first claim, it is based on the wrong idea that properties of the members are automatically properties of the mass. This is clearly not so for many properties, and I don't see why one member being tired should make the pair tired.> Nope, it is based on the complex idea that the properties of a mass are related in a variety of reasonably precise ways to properties of members of the massed set. We know that weight or yogurt-eating are simply additive, that (for team masses) winning is a causative resultant of the actions of individuals, and so on. But even in saying this we are often thinking of the mass as the whole of the mass, when -- barring explicit signs otherwise (or our winning this change) -- only some indefinit4e part of the mass is directly involved. Now, clearly if one dog in the mass of critters is tired, the some part of that mass is tired and so, in Lojban, the mass is tired: {le remei cu tatpi}. It may be unreasonable, but it is by the Book. I like your reading of {mei} in the second letter, too.
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. |