Re: myopic singular

[jorge@phyast.pitt.edu]

> >The idea is that one elects to conceptualize all instances of a category
> >as being the same individual.  Think of how we conceptualize the moon.
> >Each night we think of it as the same moon, but in principle we could
> >think of the moon on one night and the moon on other nights as different
> >moons.  Thinking of them as the same moon is myopic singularization.
>
> Sounds like Trobriand island masses

Exactly, only that Mr Rabbit is {lo'e ractu}, not {loi ractu} which
means "some rabbits" (together, not each of them individually).

> i.e.  Lojban "loi", which seems to
> be myopically singular of the sort you are describing.  One thing that
> seems to be forgotten is that loi broda displays all *relevant*
> properties of a broda.  If the claim about loi broda can be accomplished
> using only the nose of 1 member of broda, then that nose is sufficient
> to stand for the mass.

What is a relevant property? Is weight a relevant property? Is size?
One problem is that you use loi broda in English as if it was specific,
but it isn't. How can you say that some part of the mass of broda
displays all the relevant properties of a broda. Of which broda?
It is much better to give examples in Lojban, because discussing in
English leads to a lot of confusion.

> The problem comes in dealing with claims like pada/cida cu stedu loi
> remna.  The relevant portion of the mass ends up changing depending on
> the claim, so both those claims have some truth and some falsity.

Depending on how to take the scope of general quantifiers, both those
claims are false or both are true.

With my preferred interpretation they say "there is one (and only one)
thing that is a head of some part of the mass of humans" and "there are
three (and only three) things which are head of some part of the mass
of humans". Both false, since there are millions of things that are
a head of some part of the mass of humans. The reversed claims would
be both true {loi remna cu se stedu pada/cida}. "There is some part
of the mass of humans that has one/three heads".

With the other interpretation, they are both true: "there is one thing
and there is some part of the mass of humans such that the thing is
head of the part of the mass", and "there are three things and there
is some part of the mass of humans such that each thing is head of
the part of the mass".

There is a problem only if you translate {loi remna} as "the mass of
humans", when it only means "some humans".

> Compare the myopic singular mass of water:  "Water has (exactly) two
> hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom".

True only if by "water" you mean "a water molecule". False if you mean
"a quantity of water".

> Is that true for a bucket of
> water?

No.

> Yes and no.

How can it be true? A bucket of water has lots and lots of hydrogen
and oxygen atoms. It is false that "a bucket of water has exactly
two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom".

> The problem with statements about prenu/remna is
> that we sometimes think and translate the words as plural masses, and
> sometimes as a myopic singular.  "People have exactly one head" seems
> correct.  So does "People have approximately 6 billion heads" (the
> latter MIGHT be qualified with "collectively", but not necessarily.

It doesn't really matter what you can say in English. The question
is what Lojban sentences say.  {piro loi remna cu se stedu pa da}
is definitely false, as far as I understand Lojban.

> >No, because the default filler is not {da} but {zo'e}, which has lots of
> >wonderful properties.  (Very lo'e-like now that I think of it, great
> >that the vowels agree!)
>
> It wasn't accidental %^)

I think it was, because you seem to say {lo'e} is like {zu'i}. I think
that it is much more like {zo'e}.

> Hmm.  Can you meaningfully say "re zo'e" or "re zu'i" in a sumti?

And how about {re zi'o}?  They are all grammatical...

Jorge