cinfo mass example

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

>> Using masses in Lojban sentences admittedly means that truth-functional
>> evaluation becomes very difficult.
>
>It shouldn't, in my opinion. At least not any more difficult than using
>the individuating articles.
>
>>"loi cinfo cu xabju la friko.  .ije
>> loi cinfo cu na'e xabju la friko"
>
>True. Just like {lo cinfo cu xabju la friko ije lo cinfo cu na'e xabju
>la friko}.
>
>(Notice that {na'e xabju} means "other than lives" and not "doesn't live".
>For example, if some lions hunt in Africa, then it is true that
>some lions other-than-live in Africa, i.e. there is an other-than-living
>relationship between some lions and Africa.)

I was trying to avoid using "na", because I'm not sure that would be
true. My way didn't work; nor would to'e.

>It is also true that {loi cinfo cu xabju na'ebo la friko}, "some lions
>live in other-than-Africa".

That would indeed have been better.

>> and I wouldn't argue too strongly with
>> "loi cinfo cu na xabju la friko" if the context indicated a mass of
>> lions that necessarily must include lions in zoos.
>
>There are zoos in Africa too, aren't there? That sentence would
>have to be false in most contexts. It says "it is not the case that
>some lions live in Africa".

I realize that, which is why I qualified the statement by context.  I
just didn't restrict the context clearly enough.

>What _is_ true is {loi cinfo naku xabju la friko}, "some lions don't
>live in Africa".

Logically transforms, if I am correct, to "naku zo'u piro loi cinfo cu
xabju la friko" and hence to "piro loi cinfo na xabju la friko"

>> Almost any statement
>> about a mass is true, given the right context.
>
>No statement and its negation can be true at the same time, (excluding
>fuzziness, which is not what masses are about anyway).

I'm beginning to be not so sure about that, as I have indicated in some
other posting(s).

Besides, this whole mess is getting pretty fuzzy to me %^).


>> Now let us say we have two buckets, and I put one molecule of water in
>> one, and one molecule of mercury in the other.  If you know I did this
>> miraculous feat, you would understand if I asked you to give me "the
>> bucket of water".
>
>Yes, but I don't see what this shows.
>
>>  We have created an (albeit highly artificial) context
>> wherein a single molecule of water displays the relevant properties of a
>> mass of water.
>
>What relevant properties?

It is highly artificial simply in that I've made the context suchh that
the ONLY relevant property in the phrase "le baktu be loi djacu" is
"leka le djacu (selci) .enai le margu (selci) cu nenri le baktu"

and not normally relevant properties like liquidity, fullness (or
sloshiness???).

lojbab