Re: [lojban] Re: Three more issues

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la adam cusku di'e

> Isn't it it an elementary point about lojbanic masses that since a
> portion of the mass of "lei so'o valsi" is a valsi, the whole mass is
> a valsi.

It is one of the usual myths about Lojban masses, yes, but it
is false. Consider:

     le mu cukta cu ki'ogra li pimu
     Each of the five books weighs 0.5 kg.

     lei mu cukta cu ki'ogra li repimu
     The five books (as a whole) weigh 2.5 kg.

That a portion of the mass weighs 0.5 kg does not entail,
imply or in any way implicate that the mass as a whole weighs
0.5 kg. Similarly, that a portion is a word does not mean
that the whole is a word.

> The question is about "(sel)brivla". I don't see why "lei
> so'o valsi cu selbrivla" isn't correct (parellel to "lei prenu cu
> bevri le pipno", chapter 6, example 3.2), but "le so'o valsi cu
> selbrivla" is false because neither "nu" nor "kei" is a "valsi lo
> selbri" (though it is a "valsi da").

That depends on the meaning of {brivla}, not on the meaning
of {valsi}. You might define the lujvo {brivla} in such a way
as to correspond with what the grammar calls a "tanru unit", but
that is not how "brivla" is used in English, brivla is just one
type of tanru unit. Not even GOhAs are called brivla, even though
they are valsi. Only gismu, lujvo and fu'ivla are brivla. Oh, and
gismu, lujvo and fu'ivla are brivla :)

co'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.