Le dimanche 9 février 2014 21:39:10 UTC+9, selpa'i a écrit :
la .guskant. cu cusku di'e
> Suppose a universe of discourse is given, where {lo linji} is in a
> domain of plural variable.
> In this universe of discourse, {lo linji xi no} can be separated into
> shorter {lo linji xi pany}:
>
> lo linji xi pano cu me lo linji xi no
> i
> lo linji xi papa cu me lo linji xi no
> i
> ...
That sounds like {pagbu} to me, although all those lines should be the
same line mathematically, as they are all infinitely long. If you mean
line segments, then I really would use {pagbu}.
The definition of {linji} does not say that a line segment is not {linji}:
linji: x_1 se cimde pa da gi'e se cmima x_2 noi mokca
In any case, the selbri used here is not important.
Simply, in that universe of discourse, {lo linji} are recognized like that.
> Repeat the separation also for {lo linji xi pany}.
> After infinite times of separation, {lo linji} is finally separated into
> {lo mokca} which is individual:
>
> RO DA poi ke'a me lo mokca zo'u lo mokca me DA
And you can also have a {lo mokca} that refers to more than one individual.
In any case, the fact that {lo mokca} is individual does not entail that
{lo linji} does not refer to individuals.
Splitting an object and coming up with two entirely new sumti to
describe each of the two resulting parts is not the same as saying that
those two parts were {me lo <object>} all along. In other words, if I
have a single expanse of water, then {lo djacu} is an individual, even
if I have the ability to part the water (by filling it in two separate
containers for instance) and ending up with two new {lo djacu}. The
original {lo djacu} was still an individual. Splitting the water creates
new objects in the universe of discourse, because the situation changes.
> but for any shorter {lo linji}:
>
> naku lo linji me lo mokca
I would say that, since lines are not points:
no da poi linji ku'o su'o de poi mokca zo'u: da me de
No line is ever among something that is a point. And the reverse is also
true: No point is among a line. Points are parts of lines, but they
don't share the same referent(s).
I don't care about that point.
Actually, I didn't need {lo mokca} in order to say that any {lo linji} are not one or more individuals.
I mentioned {lo mokca} only for clarifying the structure of {lo linji}, but it was really unnecessary.
Only I need to say is that {lo linji xi ny me lo linji xi my} continues infinitely in that universe of discourse.
In other words, this is an infinite instance of {lo re prenu cu me lo mu prenu}.
> Therefore, any {lo linji} does not satisfy
> RO DA poi ke'a me lo linji zo'u lo linji me DA
>
> {lo linji} in this universe of discourse is not an individual.
It sounds to me like you are taking "individual" to mean "atomic,
non-separable thing". But individual just means that it can be
distinguished from other things as a referent.
No, What you think individual is actually
X me Y ije Y me X
which is a definition of "X are the same thing as Y" of plural logic.
It does not mean individual.