From araizen@newmail.net Sat Apr 28 19:43:51 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 29 Apr 2001 02:43:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 91571 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2001 02:43:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Apr 2001 02:43:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ho.egroups.com) (10.1.2.219) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Apr 2001 02:43:51 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: araizen@newmail.net Received: from [10.1.2.51] by ho.egroups.com with NNFMP; 29 Apr 2001 02:43:51 -0000 Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 02:43:49 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Three more issues Message-ID: <9cfv55+irdc@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2771 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 62.0.182.108 From: "Adam Raizen" la xorxes cusku di'e > >(and if we're talking just about > >individual properties, between "pisu'o loi broda" and "su'o lo > >broda"). > > How could we be talking just about individual properties?! > Indeed the only difference between them are the mass > properties that one has and the other doesn't. I meant, "properties that the mass inherits from its individual members, not groups of its members". > >The difference is rather one about what is being talked > >about. When I say "loi cinfo", I am thinking about and making a claim > >about all lions, even though logically I don't mean anything more than > >"lo cinfo". > > But you should mean something more: > > loi cinfo cu jitro le vi tutra > Some lions (as a group) control this territory. > > lo cinfo cu jitro le vi tutra > At least one lion controls this territory. > In that case I would use the "lo pagbu be piro loi broda" interpretation. Also, the first sentence generally implies that for some reason the speaker found it useful to make a statement about all lions as opposed to some group of lions that s happens to be talking about. s could have said something like: lo girzu be fi lo'i cinfo cu jitro le vi tutra > > > >Yes, it weighs all of them. > > > > > > But there is no "it" to speak of! Every time you use it {loi broda} > > > can refer to a different chunk of broda. > > > >Well, if you insist that the mass isn't a separate object > >ontologically, then yes. We could debate that instead, I suppose. > > That's not what I'm saying, I have no problem at all with its > ontology. I am saying that each part of the mass is a separate > object. A property of some part is not necessarily a property > of the whole. If you say that {loi broda cu brode i loi broda > cu brodi}, then you are not saying that there is one single > object, "the mass", that is both brode and brodi. You are saying > that one part of the mass is brode and one part (possibly a > different part) is brodi. I'm not sure whether it makes a difference, but I think of "pisu'o lei mu cukta" as a single object (despite its quantifier), basically unanalyzable, and all this talk about its members is just for discussion and clarifying the meaning, though it doesn't really have members like a set does. > >In > >general, I would use "lei mu cukta" to mean that I conceptualize the > >books as a single object with lojbanic mass properties. > > Me too, but then you agree with me that {lei mu cukta} is > {piro lei mu cukta}. {pisu'o lei cukta} refers to some part > of those books, and there can be many different parts. "pisu'o lei cukta" may get its properties from only some of its parts, but I still think of it as a complete whole by itself, referring to all 5 books as a mass. mu'o mi'e adam