Re: lo gunma nabmi

[jorge@phyast.pitt.edu]

There is already a simple way to talk about water molecules, copper atoms,
rice grains, sand grains, etc. Those are: jausle, tuksle, risysle, cansle.

If you want to refer to a mass of those, then {loi jausle}, {loi tuksle},
{loi risysle}, {loi cansle}.

> I noticed this in trying to understand jorge's objections to my use of
> lei djacu
> He pointed out this could mean something other than
> /a bunch of molecules of water/
> which is what I want it to mean. It could mean
> /a bunch of raindrops/
> for example. (Apparently jorge thinks in lojban!)

Not yet!

> I would suggest that one
> or more raindrops be described in lojban as
> le litki bratu

or also {le djacu dirgo}.

> and that
> lei djacu
> be reserved for water considered as discrete molecules of H2O.

But that is not as useful a concept as the everyday concept of
water. If you say {ta djacu} with your definition, you'd be saying
"that is a water molecule". That may be useful when using an electron
microscope, but not most of the time for most people. When you do
want to say that, you can say {ta djacu selci}, or, if you don't
like so many syllables, then {ta jausle}.

> IMHO the
> definitions of concepts which can commonly be considered discretely or
> continuously ought to be adjusted to allow for either continuous or
> discrete use with lei or loi.

But lei/loi already makes a different distinction. In fact, you can
use {lei} as you propose, because {lei djacu} is "the mass of those
I have in mind that I'm calling quantities of water", and you can think
of the quantities as being molecules. The question is whether anyone
who listens will understand your intent. If the context makes it clear
that you are talking about molecules then there's no problem.

Jorge