techish replies mainly to Lojbab

[ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>]

Lojbab:
> >> > There are differences between masses and myopic singulars, as I'm
> >> > sure you're aware.
> >> What is a "myopic singular"?
> >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

This is where I got the idea.

> i.e. Lojban "loi",

I used to think this was so, but then we had a discussion about it on
this list within the last year, & it turned out this isn't so.

{loi} and {lei} are porridgifiers: you add discrete ingredients &
mash them up so their boundaries vanish - you end up with a porridgey
blob.

Myopic singularization is logically equivalent, I think, to
{loi ro lo broda}, but is conceptualized similar to {pa broda}
or perhaps even {lo pa broda}. The idea is that whereas with
porridgification you distinguish between individuals but ignore
their boundaries and emblob them together, with myopic singularization
you pretend that possibly different individuals are the same
individual.

> The bottom line question is what happens when you see 2 people.  Are
> they two myopically singular humans?  If, per an example I used
> elsewhere, you see only parts of their bodies sticking around a corner,
> you cannot say "mi viska re lo'e remna".  I guess you could say "mi
> viska loi re lo'e remna".

{mi viska loe prenu} should mean there was a person-shaped
image on my retina. If I saw 2 people together, I'd say {mi viska
loe prenu remei}.

The conceptual difference is clear, but the logical difference isn't
- as I said {loe} is {loi ro lo} (& {lee} I suppose is {lei ro}).
In consequence, I find it a bit hard to defend myopic singularity
as necessary. On the other hand, there is no decent competing meaning
for {loe}/{lee}.

> 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.

The same problem arises with {1 da/6000000000da cu stedu loe remna}.

> I therefore think of lo'e as a displayant of the ideal prototype
> properties of the class.

This I feel is a job for a selbri "x1 is a displayant of the ideal
prototype properties of x2".

> >What are the properties of {zo'e}?  I thought it was that it could be
> >equivalent to {da} or to {keha}; I didn't realize it had extra magic.
> I have no idea what to make of equating "zo'e" to "ke'a" in the simple
> sentence "zo'e blanu".

That {zoe} can be +specific, or non-specific.

> I guess a formal definition of a zo'e in the nth place of a predicate
> broda is "le sexiny broda" or perhaps "da voi sexiny broda" if there is
> any distinction from the previous, where "sexiny" is the conversion
> operator (SE) for the nth place (yes it's legal to do that to SE).

That sounds a bit daft to me, given the non-veridicality of le and
voi.

> "do", as well as many other KOhA, without a quantifier is ambiguous
> between set/mass/individual, with a probable default of some kind of
> mass (lei rather than loi).  A quantifier justifies implicatures about
> which kind is intended - "redo" implies individuals numbering at least
> re;

Is that {re lo ro/suo do}?

> "pimudo" implies masses.

Why? It seems like nonsense to me. All {pi} quantifers seem like
nonsense to me. I've been following the recent discussion &
have not spotted a good case for them.

Jorge says:
> Well, I prefer to say that the mass should be viewed as a new individual,
> and that the properties of the components may or may not be relevant to
> the properties of the mass, depending on the predicate.

I think you'd be better off using something other than {lei/loi} for
cases where the "mass" is a collectivity, its members considered
"together, not separately". For things like "my books weigh several
tons" it might be better to say {le girzu be le cukta be mi}. Not
that {lei/loi} is necessarily inappropriate (though they may be) but
rather that other locutions might better serve your purpose.

---
And