Re: bits & pieces to Jorge on quantifiers

[jorge@phyast.pitt.edu]

And:
> For something to be blanu its colour must be within a fuzzily defined
> region of colour space.

Yes, but that was not my point. Suppose I point to a red thing and
say {ta blanu}. Now, I'm conceptualizing that red thing as part of a
mass that contains also some blue things. Since I'm pointing at part
of the mass, I'm pointing at the mass, and since part of the
mass is blue, then the mass is blue. Which would mean that I'm
perfectly right in saying {ta blanu} when I point to a red thing.
I don't think that's how masses should work.

> And then if you succeed in finding a way in which L, J.C. and my sock
> form a mass (e.g. on the grounds of their constituting the examplage
> in our discussion)

Right, that makes sense to me: {la lojbab joi la iulius kaesar
joi le do smoka cu se casnu mi'o}

> then you may claim that it satisfies the criteria
> for being a rorci be lo jbobau.

No! Just because we talked about it, and a component of it is a rorci,
doesn't in any sense make it a rorci.

> While that doesn't strike me as a
> likely move, I cannot see that there are clear reasons for saying such
> a claim would be false.

Because the mass entity {le se casnu be mi'o} is not a rorci. Only some
component of it is. Properties are not automatically inherited by the
mass from the components.

> > Is {le solri ku joi le lunra} a (the) member of that set?
> [Draws breath for foolhardy/foolish answer...]
> Yes and no; or rather: sort of. It satisfies some but not all
> criteria for being a member of that set. It is sort-of a member
> of that set.

What is the cardinality of a set with infinitely (uncountably many,
in fact) sort-of members?

> > > > {lei ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno} means
> > > > something very different than {le ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno}.
> The {lei} version says the man-age is carrier of the piano - doesn't
> specify number of events.

We are using "event" differently. I meant "relationship". The bridi
describes only one single relationship.

> The {le} version says man1 is carrier of the p, man2 is, and man3 is.
> Again, no specification of the number of events.

I meant that the bridi describes three relationships. I was using "event"
to mean "claimed relationship". I'm not sure what you are using it for.

> How do you get "some mass of broda" and "a certain mass of broda"?

{loi broda} and {lei broda}.

Just like {pisu'o lo'i broda} is a subset of the set of all broda
(and therefore it is "some set of broda") so is {pisu'o loi broda} a
submass of the mass of all broda (thus "some mass of broda").

> I want {lei} to mean "a certain (thing which I describe as a) mass of",
> and {loi} to mean "some mass of". Then it's not covered by {loe}.

That's what they mean! How come we are arguing? :)

But notice that if {loi tanxe} means "some mass of boxes", then you
can't conclude, from knowing that I need some mass of boxes and
that there is some mass of boxes in the other room, that the mass
of boxes in the other room is the one that I need.

Jorge