dying gasp of latest masses thread

[ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

Jorge:
> > > > then you may claim that it satisfies the criteria
> > > > for being a rorci be lo jbobau.
> > > No! Just because we talked about it, and a component of it is a rorci,
> > > doesn't in any sense make it a rorci.
> > By "you may claim that" I meant not that the mass necesssarily is a
> > rorci, but that the claim is sufficiently plausible for it to be worth
> > considering.
> Ok, it may be worth considering. I would probably decide it is false,
> but I admit someone else may decide otherwise. But back to how this
> started, I don't thing {lu'a loi rorci be la lojban} can be your sock.
> Even if {la lojbab joi le do smoka cu rorci la lojban}, that would only
>  mean that {lu'a loi rorci be la lojban} can be the mass of Lojbab and
> you sock, but not your sock by itself.

I concede I was wrong. (But I reserve the right to change my mind yet
again.) So when Lojbab said he was a member of loi rorci I was wrong
to say he was "not saying much". Mind you, he also said, as I recall,
that while he would consent to being considered a member of loi rorci
(be lo jbobau) he wouldn't necessarily consent to being considered lo
rorci. I think we now agree that if Lojbab is {lua loi rorci} then he
is also {lo rorci}.

> What's the difference between "all of some mass" and just "some mass"?

None, the first time you refer to it. I wasn't thinking straight.

> > > But notice that if {loi tanxe} means "some mass of boxes", then you
> > > can't conclude, from knowing that I need some mass of boxes and
> > > that there is some mass of boxes in the other room, that the mass
> > > of boxes in the other room is the one that I need.
> > Good. That's how it should be. And it should contrast with "the mass of
> > all boxes", and "all of the mass of all boxes".
> Those two are the same, as far as I can tell.

The mass of all boxes is in my study, but, even though my wife's
complaints allege otherwise, it is not the case that all of the
mass of all boxes is in my study. Similarly, the Pacific Ocean
laps upon the shores of Sydney harbour, but it is not the case that
all of the Pacific Ocean laps thereon.

> > If I need all of the
> > mass of all boxes then I'm trying to corner the box market; the boxage
> > in the next room is a portion of what I need. If I need the mass of all
> > boxes, then if there's some of that boxage in the next room than it's
> > what I need.
> That doesn't make sense to me. If you need the mass of all boxes, then
> what's in the next room is only part of what you need.

Right. It is needed by me, but it's not the only thing needed by me.

> Why would you say that what's in the next room is the mass of all boxes?

I would say that the mass of all boxage is in the next room. Just as
the Pacific Ocean is in Sydney Harbour. And I would say that the next
room contains lo se nitcu be mi.
---
And