[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la nitcion cusku di'e
So now Jorge and I understand loi differently, as well as all the other gadri. Right now, I'm empathising with pc. :-(
I realize you may have changed your mind on some of this, but some of these things are worth clarifying, and hopefully BF will do so.
But as far as loi is concerned, the official definition is: anything
that can be predicated of an individual {lo broda} can be predicated
of {loi broda}, and some extra claims (let's call them mass claims)
can also be predicated of {loi broda}.
That is true on one reading. {lo broda cu brode} does entail
{(pisu'o) loi broda cu brode}, because a fraction of the mass
of all broda can be a single broda.
So {loi cinfo} lives in both Africa and Australia, because individuals do.
The mixture of Lojban and English can cause confusion.
(1) lo cinfo cu xabju le friko ije lo cinfo cu xabju le sralo
is certainly true. From that it follows that:
(2) (pisu'o) loi cinfo cu xabju le friko ije (pisu'o) loi
cinfo cu xabju le sralo
If that is what is meant by {loi cinfo} living in Africa and in
Australia, there is no controversy. We also have that
(3) lo cinfo cu xabju le friko e le sralo
is almost certainly false. In any case it does not follow from (1).
It would require a lion that travels a lot.
I don't know by what trick we would want to claim that either
(1) or (2) entail that:
(4) (pisu'o) loi cinfo cu xabju le friko e le sralo
I don't think there is any group of lions that lives both in
Africa and Australia. If we take a group with members in both
places, can we really say that the group lives in Africa?
I would say not, but if it does it will be due to the meaning
of "xabju" that would allow that only a fraction of x1 be
physically present in x2. If that is the case, then (4) can
be true, but it doesn't logically follow from (1) or (2).
I don't see why quantitative and qualitative claims are different in this regard.
They shouldn't be. But {loi broda cu brode ije loi broda cu brodi}
does not entail {loi broda cu brode gi'e brodi} if {loi broda}
means {pisu'o loi broda}.
The problem is that CLL talks of {pisu'o loi broda} as "the mass
of broda" instead of as "some mass of broda". That is very confusing,
because it suggests it is a singular term when in fact it is not.
So, most {cipni} have two wings; very few have one. The mass claim
of {cipni} is that {loi cipni} has zillions of wings. True. But the
individual claim of having two wings also holds, no? So just as {loi
cipni} lives both in Africa and Asia without contradiction, surely
{loi cipni} has both two wings and a zillion wings without
contradiction.
Again, some masses of birds do have two wings (in fact lots of them do, all of those consisting of a single individual bird).
So I still think Mr Bird is {loi cipni}.
Do you mean {piro loi cipni} or {pisu'o loi cipni}?
The latter is not a singular term. It is like saying
Mr Bird is lo cipni, which is true: Mr Bird is a bird.
But the singular term "Mr Bird" is not always interchangeable
with the quantified term {lo cipni}.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail