Re: properties of masses

[jorge@phyast.pitt.edu]

la pycyn cusku di'e

> The short word for the relation between the properties of components of a
> mass and tose of the mass is "sum," in its broadest (or most ambiguous)
> sense.  Sometimes, as in weights, it is an arithmetic sum;

With that part I agree.

> other times,
> as with the classic "inhabit," it is logical sum ("or," so if one
> component has it the mass does);

This doesn't seem right to me. If it's like that, what is the use of
the fractionators? All of these would mean the same:

        piro loi cinfo cu xabju la friko
        The whole mass of lions lives in Africa.

        piso'e loi cinfo cu xabju la friko
        Most of the mass of lions lives in Africa.

        pisu'o loi cinfo cu xabju la friko
        Some of the mass of lions lives in Africa.

They would all mean that at least one lion lives in Africa. If it only
has to be true for one component for it to be true for the whole
mass, then it doesn't make any sense to talk about fractions of the mass.

I would say that "inhabit" is closer to an "and"-sum than to an "or"-sum,
although I wouldn't want to say that it is absolutely that, either. I think
the sense of {joi} is closer to {e} than to {a} in many cases.

> often it is some metaphorical, like the
> teamwork cases.  In almost all of these but the arithmetic one, we can
> shorthand by using the mass wherever we might use the name or cluster of
> names of members and get the right result.

I'm not sure I would. I wouln't say {piro loi mi tamne cu xabju le spanygu'e}
"the whole of my cousins lives in Spain" just because one of them does. Most
of them don't, so it seems wrong to say that the whole mass does.

> There is, consequently, no way to get from the proeprties of the mass to
> those of the components -- at least not specific components.

Here I agree again. The properties of the mass and of the components are
related, but how they are related depends on the specific selbri, not
on a general rule.

Jorge