From pycyn@aol.com Thu Nov 01 12:53:49 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 1 Nov 2001 20:53:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 42752 invoked from network); 1 Nov 2001 20:53:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Nov 2001 20:53:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m01.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.4) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Nov 2001 20:53:47 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id r.c4.1d12670e (3958) for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2001 15:53:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 15:53:43 EST Subject: Re: countability (was: RE: [lojban] a construal of lo'e & le'e To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_c4.1d12670e.29131057_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_c4.1d12670e.29131057_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/1/2001 1:25:27 PM Central Standard Time, jcowan@reutershealth.com writes: > This, BTW, is why Chinese philosophy very early had the insight > "White-Horse is not Horse". In a language with count nouns, this gets > mistranslated "A white horse is not a horse", which is false; but > when applied to masses, it is perfectly correct. > Well, you can get a small war on this one. As the argument is developed in Kung-sun Lung and the Mohists, it does not seem to fit that pattern but another one, roughly about the correct interpretation of a two word string (? bao ma? blanu xirma), which is indistingusihable in the Chinese of the time (at least) from a conjoint expression (xirma bakni in the early days of Pretty Little Girls School, now xirma je bakni). Others tell other tales -- including the mass noun one, which makes sense but doees not fit the actual arguments well -- so this is not definitive. Always good for a row at Chinese Philosophy meeting though. --part1_c4.1d12670e.29131057_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/1/2001 1:25:27 PM Central Standard Time, jcowan@reutershealth.com writes:


This, BTW, is why Chinese philosophy very early had the insight
"White-Horse is not Horse".  In a language with count nouns, this gets
mistranslated "A white horse is not a horse", which is false; but
when applied to masses, it is perfectly correct.


Well, you can get a small war on this one.  As the argument is developed in Kung-sun Lung and the Mohists, it does not seem to fit that pattern but another one, roughly about the correct interpretation of a two word string (? bao ma? blanu xirma), which is indistingusihable in the Chinese of the time (at least) from a conjoint expression (xirma bakni in the early days of Pretty Little Girls School, now xirma je bakni).  Others tell other tales -- including the mass noun one, which makes sense but doees not fit the actual arguments well -- so this is not definitive. Always good  for a row at Chinese Philosophy meeting though.
--part1_c4.1d12670e.29131057_boundary--