From jjllambias@hotmail.com Thu Mar 07 05:29:39 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 7 Mar 2002 13:29:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 16816 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2002 13:27:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Mar 2002 13:27:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.169) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Mar 2002 13:27:38 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 05:27:38 -0800 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 07 Mar 2002 13:27:37 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: sets, masses, &c. (was: RE: [lojban] Re: [jboske] RE: Anything but tautol... Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 13:27:37 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Mar 2002 13:27:38.0890 (UTC) FILETIME=[D9FE0EA0:01C1C5DB] 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 >So basically then shirts that have lost their shirtal integrity >aren't, strictly speaking, {loi creka}, since (according to you, >but I am not disputing it) shirtal integrity is an inherent ingredient >of shirthood. I don't know about inherent, maybe a central ingredient. I think what I'm saying is that {lo creka} and {loi creka} ultimately refer to the same objects, in different ways. Depending of the type of relationships those objects enter you choose one or the other way of referring to them, but it would never be the case that an object can be referred to with one of them but not the other. >#That's not a problem: {lo marji be loi plise} would be >#a quantity of material from apples. > >That answers my original question, then. So presumably >{loi marji be loi plise} means that each part of loi marji comes >from loi plise, but not necessarily that each part of loi plise >goes into loi marji. I think that's right. I can't see much difference between {loi marji be loi plise} and {lo marji be loi plise} though. >There are, though, still some problems. The first is that the >category derived from subtracting the individuating properties >from another category (as with mass nouns derived from >counts), is not necessarily equivalent to material; one >can massify immaterial things (e.g. misfortunes : misfortune). All right, but articles in Lojban are not used to change categories. They provide different ways of referring to the same category. We might need something other than {marji} for categorical deindividuation, but I think it would still have to be a brivla (or perhaps some other modifier, something in NAhE?). {loi} only provides referential deindividuation. >However, we may suppose that some appropriate brivla >could be created. A second problem is that a mass (English >type) is not necessarily derived from a group (a Lojban mass); >the contents of a bucket of shirt need not at any time ever >have constituted individual discrete shirts. That shows what an unfortunate choice of word "mass" was for the collective article. (JCB's choice, "set", was equally unfortunate.) >I agree that the current Lojban situation is asymmetrical, >but English is more symmetrical. Not that I'm saying Lojban >should be like English, but one would wish for it at least >not have too much trouble in accurately rendering the >meanings of English. I'm just not sure that articles is where this distinction belongs to in Lojban. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com