In a message dated 7/6/2002 5:58:51 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:As long as people don't take those rules too literally, Painfully true and so the more reason to write the rules very carefully in the beginning, leaving very little to "spirit." I think this can be done generally in these cases, though there are many hard ones -- "win", for example -- especially outside games with rules. <<Take the eating case. The rule here should give something like this: ko'a citka ko'e fo'a citka fo'e ko'a joi fo'a citka ko'e joi fo'e But this one will also probably be true: ko'a joi fo'a citka ko'e e fo'e This one, however, should be false: ko'a e fo'a citka ko'e joi fo'e All of that follows from the semantics of {citka}, whatever the sum rules may say.>> I should think that that is just about what the rules should say -- plus, of course, that when the eaten is quantized, the quantities are to be summed aritmetically by category. I wonder if we need de-massing rules as well. What does carry over from mass to individual? Is Division a worse fallacy than Composition? Again, I suspect we can make rules here, and, indeed, the remarks about when {joi} can be replaced by {e} are along that line. To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. |