From pycyn@aol.com Sat Nov 03 10:16:52 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 3 Nov 2001 18:16:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 49776 invoked from network); 3 Nov 2001 18:16:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Nov 2001 18:16:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d06.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.38) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Nov 2001 18:16:52 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id r.7d.1d55975a (17232) for ; Sat, 3 Nov 2001 13:16:50 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <7d.1d55975a.29158e92@aol.com> Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 13:16:50 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] Isn't everything a noun? (was Countability) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_7d.1d55975a.29158e92_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_7d.1d55975a.29158e92_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/2/2001 7:37:58 PM Central Standard Time, lee@piclab.com writes: > I don't see how (A) can possibly be reconciled with the books, or > with general Lojban foundations. The books make a point that predicates > are not "nouns" and "verbs", and that "le/lo" descriptions are not > inherently quantified, so the whole concept of mass noun/count noun is > meaningless. Which one is {blanu}, for instance? It can be used as a > noun, right? Is {le blanu} "the blue thing(s)", or "some blue stuff"? > How can it not be either? > The point is that almost any metaphysic can be reconciled with the book and the foundations (or else we have screwed up on one desideratum). {le} & {lo} are inherently quantified ({su'o lo ro broda} and {ro le su'o broda}) but that doesn't say what sorts of things they are: loci of properties, manifestations of Mr. Broda, slices of Broda, basic brodas, copies of Broda on imperfect media, etc. etc. In particular, it says they are individuated, but not how, or where in the scheme of things individuation lies. On the other hand, the basic expressions do not require the singular-plural distinction, which makes no sense in a mass -- rather than unit -- metaphysics. men..." thing be {lo paze xadni clarai be fo lo'i nanmu} (The 17 body- > longest-things, among the set of men) rather than {le'i paze nanmu...} > or something else awkward?> Well, this says "some of the 17 things that are all the body-tallest among men" which is not quite what you want. "the 17 men [who are taleest among men?]" is probably better. rob: Will ordering by height -- with the direction not specified -- work. Might not le nanmu pazemai such that every member is talled than any non-member work better? I think I missed this go-round. --part1_7d.1d55975a.29158e92_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/2/2001 7:37:58 PM Central Standard Time, lee@piclab.com writes:


I don't see how (A) can possibly be reconciled with the books, or
with general Lojban foundations.  The books make a point that predicates
are not "nouns" and "verbs", and that "le/lo" descriptions are not
inherently quantified, so the whole concept of mass noun/count noun is
meaningless.  Which one is {blanu}, for instance?  It can be used as a
noun, right?  Is {le blanu} "the blue thing(s)", or "some blue stuff"?
How can it not be either?


The point is that almost any metaphysic can be reconciled with the book and the foundations (or else we have screwed up on one desideratum).  {le} & {lo} are inherently quantified ({su'o lo ro broda} and {ro le su'o broda}) but that doesn't say what sorts of things they are: loci of properties, manifestations of Mr. Broda, slices of Broda, basic brodas, copies of Broda on imperfect media, etc. etc. In particular, it says they are individuated, but not how, or where in the scheme of things individuation lies.  On the other hand, the basic expressions do not require the singular-plural distinction, which makes no sense in a mass -- rather than unit -- metaphysics.  

<For example, couldn't "the 17 tallest
> men..." thing be {lo paze xadni clarai be fo lo'i nanmu} (The 17 body-
> longest-things, among the set of men) rather than {le'i paze nanmu...}
> or something else awkward?>

Well, this says "some of the 17 things that are all the body-tallest among men" which is not quite what you want.  "the 17 men [who are taleest among men?]" is probably better.

rob:

<The problem with "The 17 tallest men", once again, is that you don't
want to end up saying that each one is the tallest; quantifiers and sets
aren't the issue. All the reasonable translations I've seen have had
{su'epazemoi} in there somewhere.

Is {ro le su'epazemoi be lei nanmu bei le ka clani} awkward? Or the
glorkable version, {ro le clani nanmu su'epazemoi}?>

Will ordering by height -- with the direction not specified -- work.  Might not le nanmu pazemai such that every member is talled than any non-member work better?  I think I missed this go-round. --part1_7d.1d55975a.29158e92_boundary--