Re: mei (was Pro-Sumti)

["G. Dyke" <gordon.dyke@bluewin.ch>]

> In a message dated 7/6/2002 9:53:08 AM Central Daylight Time,
> gordon.dyke@bluewin.ch writes:
>
>
> > <> I interpret  Nmei as being a bijection between the N members of the
set
> > in
> > > x2 and the N constituants of the mass in x3.>
>
> I take it as an injection 3 >2, as it were: I think that elements in 3
have
> also to be in 2.

**Sorry, this is really confusing, I meant x1 and x2, but I now prefer
xorxes'

**nmei: x1 is a mass of n elements taken from set x2

>
> >if
> > > >even one ball is green (sometimes if even one ball has a green spot).
> > >
> >
> > But this is only true because of the implicit pisu'o. It seems to me
that
> it
> > should only be true if "enough" of the balls are green so that, when
> > considered as a mass the mass is green. Very little of a pine tree is
> > actually green (with shadows and all, even less than half) but {le ckunu
> > tricu cu crino} is true because the tree is considered as the mass of
it's
> > components.
>
> I don't think that a tree is considered a mass at all (usually, anyhow).
It
> is green just because that is the way we use that word -- analysis might
> suggest something about what they way is but would not change the humanly
> primitive use here.

**Just as a tree should not be considered a mass of things, lei broda should
be considered as a mass without consideration for the individual broda

>
> <> Agreed, we can live with an implied pisu'o on {lei bolci}, but you
can't
> > extend that to {mei}>
>
> Well, it is one way to get consistency into the mass system, the next step
> will be to make the system intensional, which is generally something to be
> avoided as long as possible.

**I need another English lesson here... (or is it a Logic lesson?) what is
wrong with getting consistency in that way?