Re: Three more issues

["Adam Raizen" <araizen@newmail.net>]

la xorxes cusku di'e
> 
> 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.

I don't see why not. 

lei mu cukta cu ki'ogra ge li repimu gi li pimu

The book explicitly states (chapter 6, section 3) that masses may have
contradictory properties.

There are (officially?) 2 properties that a lojbanic mass has: 
1) the properties of its parts (what you say it doesn't have)
2) the properties that none of its parts has individually, but they
have together.

It would have been clearer to have different ways to express these 2
properties.

If you want to contradict the book and throw out #1, that's one thing,
but I think it's quite useful. How else would you say "lions live in
africa", "butter is soft"? With "lo'e"? (don't you use that for
"any"?) And what if I don't want to say anything about the typical
one, but rather about all the individuals, without actually implying
that every single one necessarily has that property (just that there's
some reason to think of them all as if they did)?

> >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 :)
> 

I define selbrivla (what everyone else calls a brivla) to mean "valsi
lo selbri". The individual components of "lei so'o valsi" are valsi,
and the components together mean a selbri, so "lei so'o valsi" is a
selbrivla (?). Okay, something's not right. Maybe it's cheating to
combine the 2 meanings of a mass together like this.

mu'o mi'e adam