Re: bits & pieces to Jorge on quantifiers

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

Jorge:
> > 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.

This is not obviously correct.
In the case of, say, "Water is on the floor" (or "People stream
past me", "Crockery needs washing"), my intuitions tell me
that I needn't be saying that the entirety of a bounded mass of
water is on the floor. For your rule to hold, it must be the
case that
  (1a) All masses are bounded;*
  (1b) (?) All masses have recognizable components;
  (1c) A mass cannot have a property of one of its components
       unless all its components have the property.

That may turn out to be a desirable stipulation, but it is unlike
my understanding of masses, for which it is the case that
  (2a) Masses are by default unbounded, but can be bounded;
  (2b) Not all masses have recognizable components;
  (2c) A mass can share properties with not all of its portions
       (cf. "The milk in the saucepan was boiling over the rim")

[* Actually, this is not so. For it to be truth-conditionally
evaluable it must be bounded, but not for it to be meaningful.]

However, all this said, while I continue to claim that
{la lojbab joi le do zunle smoka ku joi la iulius kaesar cu rorci
be lo jbobau} and {la lojbab joi le do zunle smoka ku joi la iulius
kaesar cu du lo rorci be lo jbobau}, I suspect I may have been
wrong to suggest (as I did in the inception of this thread) that
{la lojbab joi le do zunle smoka ku joi la iulius kaesar cu du loi
rorci be lo jbobau}.

> > (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.

For such a mass to be perforated means much the same as for a sock
to be perforated. If I were to draw the perfforated mass and the
perforated sock the pictures would be alike.

> > (c) being rorci be lo jbobau.
> Again, that't not a property of the whole mass.

(i) There may not be such a thing as the whole mass (i.e. it may be
unbounded). (ii) (2a-c) mean it is (or could truthfully be said
to be) 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}.

Yes, you can say {loi rorci be lo jbobau pu klama le lunra}, truthfully.

*Truth-conditionally* {loi} may be pretty empty/trivial. But conceptually
it is not trivial/empty, since it is reasonable to presume that there
is some rational basis for conceptualizing something as a mass (typically,
such things as internal homogeneity and lack of intrinsic boundaries).

> 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}.

It wouldn't make them useless. Truth-conditions are of marginal
importance in semantics (understood as located in the mind) - they're
a sometimes useful expository device, but little more.

> > > > 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.

Quite. It is a very very atypical mass, hard to conceptualize as a mass
rather than as an unstructured collection of three unconnected entities.
But to learn about the nature of a class of things (e.g. masses, groups)
we should first examine its typical instances.

> > 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.

Well I gave several reasons for distinguishing groups from masses,
and have given above several reasons why masses should be different
in this respect. A primary reason is that groups but not masses are
ontologically distinct from their constituents (cf. the criterion
of independent existence) so the properties of masses and their
unmassed constituency ought to be of the same kind.

> > 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.

Well, in addition to the rest of what I've said, there is the
impossibility of establishing criteria for which properites a
given mass does share with its constituents.

> 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"?

Well here we're talking about a subclass of masses, namely bounded
masses. One of the things we know about {lo se junta} is that
it is bounded, and that not every portion of it has the same
weight as it. It *is* the case that for bounded entities the whole
is distinguishable from subportions of it.

However, I am dubious about whether bounded masses should properly
be considered masses. We can count them, for instance, which makes
them look like individuals. In work on English I have recognized
  (i) unbounded entities
  (ii) extrinsically bounded entities (e.g. {re lo djacu})
  (iii) intrinsically bounded entities (e.g. {lo gerku})
(in English at least these behave differently from each other in
certain respects).
{loi broda} at present can be (i) or (ii). I think that may be
unhealthy.

> > 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.

I think I'd say {da bende le ci ta}.

> 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.

Our notion of "the typical mass" seems radically different. For me,
"there's wheat/water/pork/pig all over the place" is a canonical example.
Having components is uncharacteristic of masses.

> > 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".

Only in the case of unbounded masses - if, that is, {lo djacu} is an
individual. Or are all masses individuals? What's the difference?

> 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.

It simply serves to indicate a difference between groups and masses.

> > 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?

You can have a group of sounds, but to have it you have to recognize
(i) the group, (ii) each of its member sounds. But to get sound -
to get a mass of sound(s) - all you have to do is take a collection
of sounds and then ignore their individuating boundaries.

> > 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.

I agree (contrary to what I said originally).

> > 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...

No fallacy. There's just one {loi ro lo tanxe}, or at least there's
just one mass of all boxage.

> > 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 don't wish to claim this, just as when saying {mi nitcu pa cukta}
I wish to claim neither {mi nitcu piro lo pa lo cukta} nor {mi
nitcu pisuo lo pa lo cukta}, or when saying {mi badri} I claim
neither {piro mi badri} nor {pisuo mi badri}.

> > 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?

No fraction. If {koa mamta koe} you don't ask "Which fraction of
koa?" And while {mi prami piro koa} and {mi prami pisuo koa} may
be true, neither is entailed by {mi prami koa}. {loi ro lo tanxe}
should be no different.

> > >        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.

It depends on the size of the room... The point is that {pimu loi/lo/la}
are all okay, but {loi/lo/la} don't entail {pisuo loi/lo/la} or {piro
loi/lo/la}.

> 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?

{pi mu loi remna} - an extrinsically bounded entity.

---
And