Re: replies mainly on masses

[jorge@phyast.pitt.edu]

And:
> Suppose you have a mass of (i) Lojbab, (ii) my left sock, (iii)
> J. Caesar.

Ok, that would be {la lojbab joi le do zunle smoka ku joi la iulius kaesar}

> This mass has various properties, including (a) having
> written Of the Gallic Wars,

The mass didn't write it, one of its components did. For the mass to
have written it, there would have to be some contribution or some
meaningful relationship from all components.

>(b) being somewhat threadbare and
> perforated,

Not the whole mass, only a component. I wouldn't understand what
it means for such a mass to be perforated. It would make as much
sense to me as saying that I am an eye just because one of my
parts is one.

> (c) being rorci be lo jbobau.

Again, that't not a property of the whole mass.

> I could therefore refer
> to this mass as {lo rorci be lo jbobau}

Not as I understand it. You could refer that way to a component of the
mass, but not to the mass itself.

> or as {loi rorci be lo
> jbobau}.

I don't agree. Otherwise everything is {loi rorci be lo jbobau}, since
everything can be put in a mass with lojbab. Can you say anything
nontrivial with {loi rorci be lo jbobau}? Is it true that {loi rorci
be lo jbobau pu klama le lunra}? Because according to you {la lojbab
joi la nil amstrong pu klama le lunra gi'e rorci lo jbobau}.

Masses do not automatically have the properties of its components.
That would make them absolutely useless. In fact, it would mean that
any selbri can be used to veridically describe anything, since
you can veridically refer to your sock as {lo rorci be lo jbobau}.

> {suo lua loi jbobau rorci cu rorci lo jbobau}.

Yes, but even {ro lu'a 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.

Yes, in that example. If you take your other example of J.C., the sock,
and lojbab, then the mass is the more eclectic.

> 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).

I would say that it is in the nature of the mass. In other words,
I don't see the point of separating groups and masses like that.

> For masses, I see no reason to say that
> masses don't have all properties of their constituents.

I see no reason to say that they do.

The reason to say that they don't: I don't agree that one and the same
mass should have many different weights for example. Whatever do we
gain by calling "mass of" what really is "at least one of"?

> 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.

Ok, that's reasonable. But how would you say, for example "those three
are a team". I would say {lei ci ta cu bende}, that is "the mass of those
three is/are a team", and not {le ci ta cu bende} which would mean that
each of them is a team.

A mass can be a group, a team, a blue thing, a big thing, a heavy thing,
etc. When you refer to something using {lei broda} you are referring
to one entity in terms of its components. This entity has properties
related but in no way identical to those of the components.

> The existence of masses and the existence
> of their constituency are mutually dependent.

I'm not sure what that means. "Mass" is a way of reference that contrasts
with "individual". To say that the existence of a mass depends on that of
its components is just like saying that its weight depends on the weight
of the components. It's true, but so what. Of a mass it can be said that
it is a group, but rarely of an individual (of course, groups are
individuals too, but one level up).

> 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.

I agree. But a football team must consist of a collectivity/mass of
footballers. Each member of the team is not the 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"),

sonci - soldier, sance - 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'm not sure I follow. You can't have a group of sounds?

> 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}.

I agree there is a difference. {lei broda} is used to refer to an
individual, whose components happen all to be broda. What you predicate
of this individual is up to you. For some broda it will be girzu, for
some it will be blanu. For all of them (by definition) it will be gunma.

> > > 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},

Yes, "at least one component of at least a fraction of the mass of all
broda" and "at least one broda" respectively.

> while {lua loi ro lo broda}
> = {ro lo broda}?

No, the first is "at least one component of at least a fraction of the
mass of all of all broda", while the second is {each broda}.

{ro lu'a piro loi broda} would be the same as {ro broda}.

> > {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 wouldn't be specifying in any way which box I meant, but I would
be claiming that there is one box such that I need that one. Since
I had no knowledge of the box in the other room, it would be strange
for you to think that I was basing my claim on a property of that
box.

> 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,

But there is a fallacy there. {loi ro lo tanxe} is not necessarily
referring to the same thing in those two statements. It's like saying
"If I have a leg, and a leg is in the other room...

> then I need what is in the other room

...then I have what is in the other room. It's nonsense, because
{loi tanxe} is non-specific, (or non-determinate, I never know which).
It is not one thing, it is "some fraction of one thing", and every time
you use it you get in general a different fraction, just like every time
you use {lo broda} your claim may be verified by a different broda.

> - wherever
> you find {loi ro lo tanxe} you find something I need.

No. Your claim was that there was a fraction of {piro loi tanxe}
that you needed. I have no way of knowing which fraction was that.

> I am not
> claiming that I need {ro lua loi ro tanxe}, only that I need the
> single {loi ro lo tanxe}.

What single some fraction? The one I happen to find? How do I know
your claim wasn't about some other?

> 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.

The last one may well be true, but if you say it without knowing that
I have a box in the other room I will tend to suspect that you were
not basing your claim on the properties of a box whose existence you
ignored.

On the other hand to claim {mi nitcu lo'e tanxe} you are not required
to know the properties of any particular box at all.

> >        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.

No, half the mass is enough, not half of one component.

If I say that {lei remna poi nenri le kumfa cu banzu le nu ky
culno ry}, will you also conclude that {la ron poi nenri le kumfa
cu banzu le nu ky culno ry}?  How do you say that the people fill
the room without implying that each of them does?


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

{vreji} is used for those in Nick's lujvo list.

Jorge