Re: Use and abuse of sets

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@pmail.net>]

Lojbab to Jorge:
>
> What are the members of lei djacu? Are they individual molecules?

No. Each is a djacu. An amount of water.

> But if I pour 3 portions of water into a tub, I might well describe
> that as "lei ci djacu", yet it would be impossible to delimit what each of
> le djacu were that comprised the mass.

If you can count them, then you can delimit them. Their delimitation is
discernible for the time when they're in the jugs but not for the time
when they're in the tub.

> > Each of ko'a and ko'e is
> >a member of the mass ko'a joi ko'e. Call them "components"
> >if you don't like "members", it doesn't matter. If it
> >doesn't have members, or components, it makes no sense
> >calling it a mass, it is just an ordinary entity. The only
> >thing that makes it a mass is its composition.
>
> No, what makes a mass is the loss of individual identity of any
> identifiable components the moment that you start talking of their mass
> properties.

I think that is not the prevailing understanding of masses. Replace "loss"
by "irrelevance", and you have something closer.

> Or shall we say that any possible manifestation of the mass properties is a
> putative member.

I don't understand. Obviously this works for loi djacu, but that's because
the criteria that individuate lo djacu are undefined. But what about
loi prenu?

> >The evolution I envision is one of usage. As people get
> >more of a feeling for the language I expect them to realize
> >the pointlessness of having the set articles along with the
> >mass articles and just stop using them.
>
> That may or may not eliminate them from the language.

I don't think that usage will ever eliminate words that are baselined and
described in the reference materials.

> >One way to start to know is to look at what speakers of
> >the logical language Lojban are using and not using.
>
> Nick isn't saying much these days, and we have no others.

Surely in the sense of "speaker" that is normal in linguistics there are
many speakers of Lojban, if Nick is one. And Nick hasn't been saying anything
on this list since 1994 or so! My view, based on experience, is that if Jorge
says something's useful then it is, and if he says it isn't then it isn't!

> >My point is that the parts of the grammar that are not used
> >in everyday conversation don't really belong in the language.
>
> None of Lojban is used in everyday conversation.

Change it to "the parts of the grammar that would not be needed to render
in Lojban everyday conversation in natlangs don't really belong in the
language", & Jorge's point stands.

--And.