Re: lo gunma nabmi

[jorge@phyast.pitt.edu]

la stivn cusku di'e

> The problem is that the
> definitions of some concepts in the dictionary seem inconsistent or
> arbitrary with regard to mass description. Some use discrete definitions;
> some use continuous.
>
> Again, look at beans & rice:
>
> *bean, x1 is a |/pea/leguminous seed from plant [legume] x2 /:/ /=/ dembi
 (deb)
>
> *rice, x1 is a quantity of | [a type of grain] of strain/cultivar x2 /:/
> /=/ rismi (ris)
>
> Why should /dembi/ be thought of as individuals and /rismi/ thought of as
> groups?

I agree that seems inconsistent. Those are borderline cases, where both
the grain and the mass are everyday objects, so I wouldn't mind if {rismi}
meant "x1 is a grain of rice". But water molecules are not everyday objects,
and I don't really see a reason for a special gismu for them, just as I don't
see a reason for a special gismu for methanol molecules, or O2 molecules,
or any other particular molecule.

> From the discussion about trobriand islander masses I inferred (perhaps
> mistakenly) that the particular mass designation of /ractu/ depends on the
> preceding cmavo:
> le la lo, lei, loi etc.

The discussion about Trobrianders, in my opinion, does not apply to {loi}.
It may apply to {lo'e}, I'm not sure. Unfortunately, almost all explanations
of {loi} are made in English with very little Lojban examples. I very, very
much doubt that the Lojbanistani would say {mi viska loi ractu} upon seeing
a single rabbit, instead of {mi viska lo ractu}.

> For djacu, it makes sense to me to me to define the concept broadly enough
> to include everything down to 1 molecule of water. It would not make sense
> to me to bring things down to the level of the constituent atoms of water
> or their constituent neutrons/protons/quarks/superstrings, as the essential
> properties of water we experience in everyday life are lost once you break
> up the water molecule into hydrogen and oxygen or into smaller units.

The essential properties of water we experience every day are lost long
before you break water into molecules. You can't drink less than a very
large number of molecules, and drinking it is probably one of water's
chief properties. Molecules are not wet, water is. Molecules are not
liquid, water is. Water can be seen and touched, molecules can't. I can't
think of any everyday properties of water that are also properties of
molecules.

> Notice how person, human, and people all map to /prenu/ (Seems reasonable)

Human is {remna}, persons can be non-human. I'm not sure what you mean
by saying that "people" maps to it. {lei prenu} is "people", but whatever
goes in the x1 of {prenu} has to be a person, not a people.

> This suggests that the cmavo determine whether we mean a group or an
> individual.

Right, but based on the meaning of the gismu. For a given {broda}:
{le broda} and {lo broda} refer to individuals that fit the x1 of
relationship {broda}; {lei broda} and {loi broda} refer to entities
whose components (but not necessarily themselves) fit the x1 of
{broda}.

> Talking about
> water as an infinitesimally divisible mass is not accurate, at least as far
> as science can tell us.

Nobody says {djacu} is infinitesimally divisible. Nobody says that {gerku}
is infinitesimally divisible either. Nor is {blanu} infinitesimally
divisible.

> ta djacu means "there is one or more water
> molecules, exact meaning determined by context" That definition includes
> BOTH our meanings, which can be distinguished by cmavo or listener
> questioning.

{ta djacu} makes as much reference to molecules as {ta blanu} does. If
you understand {ta blanu} as "that is one or more atomic structures that
absorb photons of such and such wavelength", then it makes sense to
understand {ta djacu} as you say. I think most people don't conceptualize
it like that, even if they know their science.

> I think the (minor) inconsistencies in the dictionary suggest you are
> putting far too much weight on the literal english used to translate the
> lojban predicate /djacu/ into English.

Believe me, I tend to do the opposite. I disagree with lots of things
in the dictionary, but in this case I agree with it that {pa djacu} is
not one molecule of water.

Jorge