From pycyn@aol.com Sat May 26 05:50:43 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 26 May 2001 12:50:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 24368 invoked from network); 26 May 2001 12:50:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 26 May 2001 12:50:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d06.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.38) by mta1 with SMTP; 26 May 2001 12:50:42 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.26.15f49010 (4322) for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 08:50:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <26.15f49010.2841009d@aol.com> Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 08:50:37 EDT Subject: re: loi To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_26.15f49010.2841009d_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_26.15f49010.2841009d_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable rab.spir {lei} is to {loi} as {le} is to {lo}, so no; they refer to different masses xorxes: Right. That particular assignment, motivated by the corresponding value fo= r=20 {lo} is a part of the problem with explaining how {loi} functions, since it= =20 forces us to conceive of a mass as something other than a way of talking=20 about a set (or rather the set's members) and means that each {loi broda} m= ay=20 be different. It claims to prevent paradoxes in this way, but I am not sur= e=20 that that is a sufficient advantage for the problems it creates in other wa= ys=20 (see all the discussions of {loi} elsewhere). {lei} is much clearer than=20 {loi} as a result. cowan: <>=A0=A0 But our putting it that way misses what the Trobriander means=20 > when he says (I don't know whether this is authentic) "gavagai" which is= =20 not=20 > "There goes a rabbit" but "Lo, Mr. Rabbit."=20 AFAIK Quine made up "gavagai" for his indeterminacy of translation thesis: we, the Westerners, think it means "rabbit", but in fact it means "sundry detached rabbit parts".=A0 Not, I suppose, physically detached!> I think -- still without the stuff around I need to check -- that this is=20 right and my memory (as usual) played me false. So the Trobriand case and= =20 the Quinine case are different and the Q belongs more to goo theory of mass= es=20 and to the argument about whether the mass of people included detached peop= le=20 parts. I think that one got decided in the negative, while allowing that=20 seeing (for example) a leg was seeing the person of whom the leg was (still= )=20 a part and thus seeing loi prenu. Sorry about the muddles; I hope the point got through. --part1_26.15f49010.2841009d_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable rab.spir
<I thought an important part of {loi} was that it refers to part of = the mass,
not the whole thing. Wouldn't that be {lei}?>
{lei} is to {loi} as {le} is to {lo}, so no; they refer to different ma= sses

xorxes:
<I would say that the last is {piro loi}.

Since {loi} by itself is {pisu'o loi}, it should give "there are
some Chicagoans that altogether drink more than some New Yorkers".
Very little informative indeed, and I'm not sure the original can
even have this reading.>
Right. That particular assignment, motivated by the corresponding= value for=20
{lo} is a part of the problem with explaining how {loi} functions, sinc= e it=20
forces us to conceive of a mass as something other than a way of talkin= g=20
about a set (or rather the set's members) and means that each {loi brod= a} may=20
be different. It claims to prevent paradoxes in this way, but I a= m not sure=20
that that is a sufficient advantage for the problems it creates in othe= r ways=20
(see all the discussions of {loi} elsewhere). {lei} is much clear= er than=20
{loi} as a result.

cowan:
<>=A0=A0 But our putting it that way misses what the Trobriander = means=20
> when he says (I don't know whether this is authentic) "gavagai" wh= ich is=20
not=20
> "There goes a rabbit" but "Lo, Mr. Rabbit."=20

AFAIK Quine made up "gavagai" for his indeterminacy of translation thes= is:
we, the Westerners, think it means "rabbit", but in fact it means
"sundry detached rabbit parts".=A0 Not, I suppose, physically detached!= >

I think -- still without the stuff around I need to check -- that this = is=20
right and my memory (as usual) played me false. So the Trobriand = case and=20
the Quinine case are different and the Q belongs more to goo theory of = masses=20
and to the argument about whether the mass of people included detached = people=20
parts. I think that one got decided in the negative, while allowi= ng that=20
seeing (for example) a leg was seeing the person of whom the leg was (s= till)=20
a part and thus seeing loi prenu.

Sorry about the muddles; I hope the point got through. --part1_26.15f49010.2841009d_boundary--