Re: dying gasp of latest masses thread

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

And:
> 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.

How would you write the first proposition in Lojban?
Would it be {loi tanxe cu nenri le mi kumfa}? If yes, does it
say anything different from {pisu'o loi tanxe cu nenri le mi kumfa}?
Do you gain anything from translating it as "the mass of all boxes"
instead of the much more colloquial "some boxes"? My problem with
"the mass of all boxes" is that I would use that to translate
{piro loi tanxe}.

> 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.

This presents no problem, since "the Pacific Ocean" is an individual.
It is all of it that laps thereon as far as fractionators are
concerned, but it is not necessary to even mention them.

If you are talking about "the waters of the Pacific Ocean", then
I agree it may be wrong to say {piro lei djacu pe la pasifik}
lap upon the shore. It would depend on the definition of "lap upon"
more than anything else. When can you say that something laps upon
something else?

For something to be inside a room, it is usually required that
all its physical parts, or most of them, be there. For something
to be seen, it is not required that all its physical parts be
seen. Those are part of the definition of "be inside" and "see",
irrespective of whether the arguments are individuals or masses
of individuals.

> I would say that the mass of all boxage is in the next room.

I wouldn't. Only a tiny fraction of it is there. Unless we are
using "is" differently. Do you mean "nenri" or do you mean
"is present"?

Jorge