From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Wed Apr 25 09:57:56 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 25 Apr 2001 16:57:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 60627 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2001 16:57:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 25 Apr 2001 16:57:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta3 with SMTP; 25 Apr 2001 16:57:32 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Wed, 25 Apr 2001 17:37:51 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 17:57:26 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 17:57:10 +0100 To: lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Three more issues Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta Jorge: #but for me {loi cinfo} means #{pisu'o loi cinfo}, some part of the mass of all lions. #There is nothing contradictory there. However, I would not #agree with: # #loi cinfo le fi'ortu'a cu xabju gi'enai xabju # #because that would claim that the same part of the total mass #of lions both lives and does not live in Africa. Isn't there a scope issue here, if "loi ro lo cinfo" expands to "da poi ke'a du pi su'o loi ro lo cinfon"? Then if da is within the scope of "gi'enai" then you're right. If "gi'enai" is within the scope of da then you're wrong. That said, I'm not sure that this "pi su'o" interpretation of masses matches our intuitions about them, as witness the example of weighing 100 kilos (where X weighs Y iff=20 the whole of X weighs Y). As I said in an earlier message of today, the piro/pisu'o interpretation is determined by the predicate. In cases where the pisu'o interpretations is appropriate, as with "is sunburnt" or "lives in Africa", "X is sunburnt and X na is sunburnt" and "X lives in Africa and X na lives in Africa" make no sense, but "X is sunburnt and X na'e is sunburnt" and "X lives in Africa and X na'e lives in Africa" do make good sense, so my conclusion is that na-contradictions don't occur but na'e contradictions do. --And.