From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sun Mar 12 12:43:01 2000 Received: (qmail 2484 invoked from network); 12 Mar 2000 20:38:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 12 Mar 2000 20:38:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.220) by mta1.onelist.com with SMTP; 12 Mar 2000 20:38:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 30640 invoked by uid 0); 12 Mar 2000 20:38:52 -0000 Message-ID: <20000312203852.30639.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.41.247.51 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 12:38:52 PST X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.51] To: lojban@onelist.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Mass/Set Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 12:38:52 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed X-eGroups-From: "Jorge Llambias" From: "Jorge Llambias" la lojbab cusku di'e >Implicit quantifier su'o normally means "one" but could be "part of one" in >some circumstances. This is a new rule!!! I don't agree with it. >Let us say that I spot someone's head far away >sticking above an obstruction. I would say "I see someone"; "mi viska lo >prenu" even though what I saw was far less than a person But it would be true only if there really was a person there. If the head turned out to be just a head you would have to admit that you had not seen a person after all. This is a property of {viska}. The x2 is never fully exposed to the eyes of x1. Normally only one side of x2 can be detected by x1, and only the surface of x2 at that, hardly ever the interior. And often clothed or partly covered. There is nothing in {viska} that requires you to detect every particle of x2 in order to claim that you see a person, but there must be a person there if you want to claim that what you see is a person. >To clearly say you ate the >whole apple, you can say piropa or piro le pa lo plise. Or {lo mulno plise}. co'o mi'e xorxes ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com