replies mainly on masses

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

MAINLY ON MASSES & {LO'E}
Jorge:
> > > > even if you would not consent to be considered a rorci.
> > > I would consent to being a component of loi rorci
> > Well, there are some loi rorci be Lojban such that Julius Caesar
> > or my left sock is a component of them. That's not saying much.
> Could you elaborate on that? I would think that {ro lu'a loi rorci
> be la lojban cu rorci la lojban}. Why would you call them
> {loi rorci} if not?

Suppose you have a mass of (i) Lojbab, (ii) my left sock, (iii)
J. Caesar. This mass has various properties, including (a) having
written Of the Gallic Wars, (b) being somewhat threadbare and
perforated, (c) being rorci be lo jbobau. I could therefore refer
to this mass as {lo rorci be lo jbobau} or as {loi rorci be lo
jbobau}. {suo lua loi jbobau rorci cu rorci lo jbobau}.

> > What you want to say is that you are a member of a rorci *group*,
> > not a component of a rorci *mass*.
> What is the difference?

Take a football team as an example of a group, and some wheat or oats
as an example of a mass. The group is much more clearly a collectivity
of discrete and autonomous members. It is the nature of the group that
determines which properties it shares with its members (e.g. scoring a
goal but not having red hair). For masses, I see no reason to say that
masses don't have all properties of their constituents. Groups'
existence is independent of their members', so, for example, a football
team can lack players, or the team can disband even while the former
players remain in existence. The existence of masses and the existence
of their constituency are mutually dependent. The nature of a group
cannot be derived from the nature of its members; a collectivity of
footballers will not necessarily be a football team. In contrast, the
nature of a mass derives from the nature of its constituents; put
another way, among the properties associated with categories are those
that serve to individuate its instances, so for example in the case
of {sonci} (or is it {sanci}? - "sound"), included in its definition
are the criteria for distinguishing one sanci from another. By ignoring
these criteria we automatically get a mass, but not a group.

I don't wish to lay too much emphasis on the labels "mass" and "group"
- there may be better terms I could have used, and I may be wrong to
suspect that reference to groups rather than masses might often better
serve your purposes, but I do think there is a significant conceptual
distinction to be made between "groups" ({girzu}, I suppose) and
masses {loi/lei}.

> > {loi} and {lei} are porridgifiers: you add discrete ingredients &
> > mash them up so their boundaries vanish - you end up with a porridgey
> > blob.
> I agree with the description. But the weight of the porridge is the
> sum of the weights of the ingredients. Other properties don't add up
> so nicely, though. The colour of the porridge will be that of the
> ingredients only if they are all mostly of the same colour, otherwise
> the resulting colour may be something else.

I agree, for I think the same reasoning should apply to masses as to
(other) individuals.

> And {lu'a} gets you the ingredients back from the porridge,
> it doesn't get you just any arbitrary porridge fraction.

I agree, whether this is logically necessary or has to be stipulated.

> > Myopic singularization is logically equivalent, I think, to
> > {loi ro lo broda},
> {loi ro lo broda} is the same as {loi broda}, as far as I can tell.

Is it? Isn't {lua loi broda} = {suo lo broda}, while {lua loi ro lo broda}
= {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.
> Right...
> > {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}).
> I don't think you can reduce them to masses. {mi nitcu lo'e tanxe}
> does not mean that I need the mass of all boxes. It means that there
> is a box-shaped image on my need organ, without making any claim
> about any or all boxes of the universe. The nice thing about the
> myopicity is that then you can say, "hey, I have a box in the other
> room, do you want it?" while if I had just said {mi nitcu lo tanxe},
> the chances that I was talking about that partricular box are
> minimal,

Well you wouldn't have been talking about any particular box if you
used {lo}, but I take your point.

I am sympathetic to your reasoning about {loe} but I don't agree
with you yet. If I need {loi ro lo tanxe} and {loi ro lo tanxe} is
in the other room, then I need what is in the other room - wherever
you find {loi ro lo tanxe} you find something I need. I am not
claiming that I need {ro lua loi ro tanxe}, only that I need the
single {loi ro lo tanxe}. In fact the box in the next room might
be wholly unsuitable, in which case {ti pohu le tanxe cu se nitcu}
is false but {ti pohu loi ro lo tanxe cu se nitcu} is true.

> > > 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".
> Isn't that {ckaji}?

Or some lujvo based on it.

> > > "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.
> They might have their uses:
>        pimu lei remna poi nenri le kumfa cu banzu le nu ky culno ry
>        Half of the people in the room are enough to fill it.

Well, maybe, in which case {pimu lo remna poi nenri le kumfa cu banzu
le nu ky culno ry} or {pimu la ron poi nenri le kumfa cu banzu le nu
ky culno ry} should be equally okay. I'd prefer a selbri, since the
meaning is more selbri-ish than quantiferierish:

     lo be fi li re ku frinu be fe [lei remna/lo remna/la ron] poi nenri
     le kumfa cu banzu le nu ky culno ry

     lo relfrinu be [lei remna/lo remna/la ron] poi nenri le kumfa cu
     banzu le nu ky culno ry

OTHER BITS & PIECES:
> > The voluble contributors to the list are only a small minority of
> > the community at large, no?
> Depends what you mean by the community. If you mean subscribers of
> Ju'i, then I suppose the list may be a minority. If you mean those who
> ever use the language, I would bet we are the overwhelming majority.

I believe there are those who participate minimally or not at all on the
list but who contribute much time and/or money and/or moral support, and
have been doing so for a good few years.

> > I meant simply to clarify what the fuhivla was -
> > video cassette - by saying incidentally that it was associated
> > with a VDU.
> Yes, I understood what you meant. As I said in my reply, I find
> the fu'ivla in question quite ugly, not only because it's based
> on English pronunciation, but because I don't think fu'ivla are
> meant for that kind of thing. That's what lujvo are for.

Well I did try to find a lujvo. There really ought to be a gismu
for cassette/CD/diskette/LP.

> > > le do minji ba le nu do zgana le cfila kei za lo djedi
> > > i ji'a cumki fa le nu mupli le la merfis flalu
> > kie milxe kufra
> i xu lu milxe kufra li'u mi do cmene

snuti i kui mapti i mapti fa lu kiermilxykufra

---
And