From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed Mar 06 07:35:32 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 6 Mar 2002 15:35:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 20584 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2002 15:35:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Mar 2002 15:35:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.5) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Mar 2002 15:35:31 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 07:35:31 -0800 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 06 Mar 2002 15:35:29 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: sets, masses, &c. (was: RE: [lojban] Re: [jboske] RE: Anything but tautol... Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 15:35:29 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Mar 2002 15:35:31.0654 (UTC) FILETIME=[8CE72E60:01C1C524] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la and cusku di'e >No, but you could say "a bowl full of shirt" if the bowl is >full of shirts that have lost their shirtal integrity. Ok, to the extent that shirts that have lost their shirtal integrity are still shirts, they can be referred to as {loi creka}. But once they're no longer conceived as shirts, they are no longer creka. Even if in English they can be shirt when they are no longer shirts. >It does concern me, though (to the extent that >I care about lojban matters), that there seems to be no way >to talk about an English-type mass of things that have lost >their individuating characteristics but no other. Well, okay, >a lujvo based on marji provides a way, but any lujvo >ought to be paraphrasable by an expanded phrase >in which the lujvo components each form a separate >brivla. That's not a problem: {lo marji be loi plise} would be a quantity of material from apples. >If we can talk in Lojban about "re djacu", we conversely >should be able to talk about "a bowl full of apple". That is, >if we can countify what is basically a mass (in English), so >we ought to be able to massify what is basically a count. I'm not sure the symmetry is complete. It is a property of any material that it can be split into quantifiable chunks. It is not so clear that objects that are not essentially materials can always be meaningfully thought of as a material. If {plise} referred to "apple stuff" rather than to apples, then we could talk of individual apples as chunks of the stuff (among other possibilities), but as it is the only way to get to the stuff is to use a word for "stuff". {loi} only works so far as the stuff of one apple is still considered one apple. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx