On 08.10.2016 23:28, Martin Bays wrote:
* Friday, 2016-10-07 at 14:10 +0200 - selpahi <seladwa@gmx.de>:https://solpahi.wordpress.com/2016/09/25/a-simpler-quantifier-logic/Very nice. One thing which might be worth mentioning: we shouldn't forget about masses. (Here, I mean 'masses' in the mereological sense: things which can't be counted, as in "mass noun". I'm not talking about {gunma}.) But working mereologically/{me}reologically, i.e. basing everything on {me}, means we essentially get masses for free. e.g. {ru'o djacu poi nenri lo kabri cu lenku} gets the expected meaning. And with your proposed redefinition of numerical quantifiers, {za'u [no]} would work as the existential quantifier. .e'u nai ro pa me ro tadni poi sruri lo dinju cu ba se sruri za'u djacu
The relationship between plural logic and mass nouns, specifically the idea that mass nouns are just plurals, is something that I've been very interested in recently. (and relatedly, the relationship between kinds and plurals)
Chierchia (1998), for example, is a nice read.I agree masses (mass nouns) should not be ignored, but I think the topic of mass nouns is specific enough to be a topic unto itself, for a different article, which maybe someone else would like to write? :)
~~~mi'e la solpa'i --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lojban. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.