Re: Three more issues

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

la xorxes cusku di'e

> la adam cusku di'e
> 
> >"loi cinfo" is "pisu'o loi cinfo", according to the book (chapter
6,
> >section 7)
> 
> Right! Then I don't see what we are arguing about. The problem
> is in translating it as "the mass of all lions" when it obviously
> cannot be so translated when it means just "some part of the mass
> of all lions".

Logically, I don't see a difference between "pisu'o loi broda" and
"su'o lo pagbu be piro loi broda" (and if we're talking just about
individual properties, between "pisu'o loi broda" and "su'o lo
broda"). The difference is rather one about what is being talked
about. When I say "loi cinfo", I am thinking about and making a claim
about all lions, even though logically I don't mean anything more than
"lo cinfo". I would use "lo cinfo" when I mean some lions, without
implying anything about lions in general.
 
> I was confused about where I differ from the book. It was about
> {lei}, which for me has to be default {piro lei} (exactly parallel
> to {ro le}) and the book has it as {pisu'o lei}.

It might have been better to have done it like that, but I want to
make sure that the current definition is unworkable before I try to
change it.
 
> > > >To take another example, say a meat-eater says "loi rectu cu
> >kukte". m
> > > >does not want to claim that every piece of meat is tasty,
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, you are thinking of {piro loi rectu}
> >
> >No, I'm thinking of "pisu'o loi rectu", as per the book.
> 
> Then we agree. It just means "some meat is tasty".

If the speaker means "some meat is tasty" and says "loi rectu cu
kukte", s is being uncooperative. "loi rectu cu kukte" makes a claim
about "the mass of all meat" (though not a logical one), whereas "lo
rectu cu kukte" doesn't.

> > > In your view of things, does the mass of five books also
> > > weigh 1, 1.5, and 2 kg? i.e does it inherit the properties of
> > > its submasses as well as those of its components?
> >
> >Yes, it weighs all of them.
> 
> But there is no "it" to speak of! Every time you use it {loi broda}
> can refer to a different chunk of broda. Of course different chunks
> can have different weights, so if you take {lei broda} as
> {pisu'o lei broda}, we are in agreement. But don't translate it
> as "the books" when what you mean is "some of the books".

Well, if you insist that the mass isn't a separate object
ontologically, then yes. We could debate that instead, I suppose. In
general, I would use "lei mu cukta" to mean that I conceptualize the
books as a single object with lojbanic mass properties.

> >Under most circumstances it's probably not
> >useful to claim those weights, but there might be circumstances.
For
> >example consider the following:
> >
> >a: i mi nitcu lo ki'ogra be li papimu
> >b: i lei mu cukta cu ki'ogra li papimu
> 
> The first sentence has to be understood as "there is at least one
> .5 kg object that I need", it is a claim about existent .5kg objects
> as well as about {mi}. What you really mean is a claim about {mi}
> only, not in relationship with any particular object. That's why
> I use {lo'e} there instead of {lo}.

I'm not sure what you mean. Every claim is to some extent a claim
about the speaker and not objective reality. What a is saying is that
there exists some 1.5 kg object that a needs (without saying whether
it's a specific 1.5 kg object). If a wants to say something else, a
can.

> That's not really addressing your point though. Changing {lo} to
> {lo'e}, the answer works if you mean "some part of the 5 books
> weighs 1.5 kg" by it. I don't get that meaning because for me
> {lei mu cukta} is {piro lei mu cukta}, "the whole mass of 5 books".
> 
> Using {pisu'o} instead of {piro} makes {lei} a much more
> complicated term logically in its interactions with other terms.
> {piro lei} on the other hand is the simplest of all, as its
> order of appearance doesn't change anything.

They should have thought of that when designing the language :-)

> > > Is {lei mu cukta} heavier or lighter than a 1.5 kg object?
> >
> >Both, if you want to force the meaning of "all 5 of the books
> >together, you can use "piro lei mu cukta cu ki'ogra li repimu".
> 
> Yes, that is what I mean by {lei mu cukta}. It seems we are not
> in much disagreement after all.

There's no doubt that the masses could be have been made better in any
number of ways, including the default quantifiers. I'm trying to make
the current definition work before I try to change it.

mu'o mi'e adam