From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sat Apr 21 16:33:22 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 21 Apr 2001 23:33:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 78887 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2001 23:33:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 21 Apr 2001 23:33:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.215) by mta2 with SMTP; 21 Apr 2001 23:33:21 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 16:33:20 -0700 Received: from 200.41.210.29 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 23:33:20 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.210.29] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Three more issues Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 23:33:20 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Apr 2001 23:33:20.0409 (UTC) FILETIME=[7309C890:01C0CABB] From: "Jorge Llambias" la adam cusku di'e >lei mu cukta cu ki'ogra ge li repimu gi li pimu > >The book explicitly states (chapter 6, section 3) that masses may have >contradictory properties. Well, if you're happy with that... I prefer to stay rational as far as possible. >There are (officially?) 2 properties that a lojbanic mass has: >1) the properties of its parts (what you say it doesn't have) I don't say it never shares properties with its parts. Masses very often do. A mass of water is water. A mass of softs things is soft. A mass of blue things is blue. A mass of things that are to my left is to my left. But a mass of persons usually is not a person. And a mass of words, usually is not a word. A mass of several things that weigh one gram each does not weigh one gram. >If you want to contradict the book and throw out #1, that's one thing, >but I think it's quite useful. I don't. I think it's very messy. >How else would you say "lions live in >africa", A mass of things that live in Africa does live in Africa, I have no problem with that. >"butter is soft"? A mass of quantities of butter is still a quantity of butter, and if each quantity is soft then the whole quantity will also be soft. >With "lo'e"? (don't you use that for >"any"?) It's more like a zi'o with content. For example {nitcu lo'e tanxe} is like a new selbri that means "x1 box-needs for purpose x3", I want to claim a relationship between x1 and x3 but not something that involves any actual box. So, I would say that {lo'e cinfo cu xabju la afrikas} means that Africa is inhabited by lions, a claim about Africa, not really a claim about lions. >And what if I don't want to say anything about the typical >one, but rather about all the individuals, without actually implying >that every single one necessarily has that property (just that there's >some reason to think of them all as if they did)? {lei cinfo cu xabju la afrikas} or {le cinfo cu xabju la afrikas} would seem to work for what you want. >I define selbrivla (what everyone else calls a brivla) to mean "valsi >lo selbri". Then that would seem to cover words in "selmaho BRIVLA" and words in selma'o GOhA. >The individual components of "lei so'o valsi" are valsi, >and the components together mean a selbri, Right. >so "lei so'o valsi" is a >selbrivla (?). It's a {selbri vlamei} >Okay, something's not right. Maybe it's cheating to >combine the 2 meanings of a mass together like this. It certainly leads to weird stuff. If you allow contradictions as truths, anything goes. co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.