more rorci mass

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

>> > And then if you succeed in finding a way in which L, J.C. and my sock
>> > form a mass (e.g. on the grounds of their constituting the examplage
>> > in our discussion)
>> Right, that makes sense to me: {la lojbab joi la iulius kaesar
>> joi le do smoka cu se casnu mi'o}
>> > 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.  One would have to deliberate further on what are the
>necessary properties of rorcihood, in order to decide whether the mass
>has them.  Without thinking it through, my intuition is that the mass is
>a rorci in a marginal kind of way.
>
>> > While that doesn't strike me as a likely move, I cannot see that there
>> > are clear reasons for saying such a claim would be false.
>> Because the mass entity {le se casnu be mi'o} is not a rorci. Only some
>> component of it is. Properties are not automatically inherited by the
>> mass from the components.
>
>Yes, properties aren't automatically inherited.  But I fail to see why
>this mass isn't a rorci.  Some component of it is, and I can't tell one
>component from another, so it looks to me like the mass is a rorci,
>assuming that it satisifies the properties of rorcihood.

I don't think that there is any requirement that you not be able to tell
one component from another in a mass.  The language does not allow you
to identify or talk about a specific component within a mass without
specifically identifying it as such, but the speakers need not be blind
to non-uniformity of properties, and should not assume that all
properties are inherited.

If I have one molecule of sugar in my glass of water, I can say that loi
djacu cu nenri lemi kupta, and I may say that loi sakta cu nenri lemi
kupta.  I may drink "loi djacu" which mass happens to include the
incidental sugar molecule, or loi djacu joi sakta.  I do not think I can
say that I drank "loi sakta", because the process labelled "drinking"
requires a larger volume of mass than a single molecule.  I do not think
that I kan say that I drank "loi djacu ku joi loi kupta", because the
mass did not inherit the property of drinkability, or cannot be said to
distribute the property of drinkability over all its components.

It IS possible to distribute the property of touching, transitively
through a mass, so that if my finger is touching something (ti) than "I"
am touching ti, as a mass connected to my finger.  I am not sure that
transitivity of contact is open-ended - with you in the UK and me in the
US, we cannot say "mi'o/mijoido pencu ti".  But if I am holding hands
with Nora, "mi joi la noras. pencu ti" is reasonable.

"ledu'u dakau rorci" does not seem to be transitive to non-agents in my
concept of rorci.

Now if *you* can't tell me from your left sock, then I won't fault you
for your logic, but I will suggest you get your eyes or something
checked.