Le lundi 10 février 2014 21:38:06 UTC+9, selpa'i a écrit :
la .guskant. cu cusku di'e
> Le lundi 10 février 2014 00:55:01 UTC+9, selpa'i a écrit :
> Let's say the original single line segment L looks like this:
>
> |-----------------------------------------------| <- {lo linji}
> L
>
> You seem to be saying that L is not an individual because we can
> turn it
> into multiple smaller line segments A, B, C, like this:
>
> |---------------| |---------------| |---------------|
> A B C
>
> Further, you seem to be saying that A, B, and C are all among L. You
> also seem to be saying that each of A, B, C are not individuals either,
> because we can further split them, like this:
>
> |-------|-------| |-------|-------| |-------|-------|
> M N O P Q R
>
> And that M and N are among A, and so on.
>
> Is this what you are saying?
>
>
>
> Yes.
But how does that work? If the original {lo linji} (L) is an individual,
then only itself can be among itself. On the other hand, if it is *not*
an individual, then we cannot call it {lo linji} in the first place. You
The individuality is not an necessary condition for being {lo linji}. A special {lo linji} such that {RO DA poi ke'a me lo linji zo'u lo linji cu me DA} is an individual.
could say that {lo linji} is more than one individual, and then the same
things that applied to the singular L would apply again for each of the
referents of the "more than one individual" L. At some point through the
taxonomy, you must arrive at an individual or individuals and then you
can't go further and say that even smaller things are among that
individual. Even the shortest line doesn't have {lo mokca} {me} it.
There is no shortest line. That is the point for proving that any {lo linji} in this universe of discourse cannot be an individual.
> For example, in the case of finite {lo ci prenu}, let us call the three
> persons p1, p2, p3. In the universe of discourse. The following sumti
> are all in the domain of plural variable that are prenu even if you
> don't mention the sumti:
> p1
> p2
> p3
> p1 jo'u p2
> p2 jo'u p3
> p3 jo'u p1
> p1 jo'u p2 jo'u p3
Yes.
But I don't quite see how this is the same case. If this is what you
were going for with the {linji} example, then it doesn't show anything
that qualifies as not being one or more individuals.
The 7 possible plural values for {prenu} above are all one or more
individuals. Listing infinitely many more would not change that.
Not an infinite number of {lo linji} itself but an infinite number of procedures of affirming that {lo linji xi ny cu me lo linji xi my i ku'i naku lo linji xi my cu me lo linji xi ny} do prove that every {lo linji} is not one or more individuals.
> Similarly, the infinite number of {lo linji} were in the domain of
> plural variable that are linji when the universe of discourse was given
> first.
Infinity does not preclude individualness. If you have an infinite
number of "things", then you just have infinitely many individuals.
{lo linji} in that universe of discourse are not individuals but an infinite number of non-individuals, because every {lo linji xi my} has always another {lo linji xi ny} such that
{lo linji xi ny cu me lo linji xi my i ku'i naku lo linji xi my cu me lo linji xi ny}, and this proposition contradicts the condition for individual {RO DA poi ke'a me lo linji xi my zo'u lo linji xi my cu me DA}. Therefore, every {lo linji} is neither an individual nor individuals.