[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xod:
> On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, And Rosta wrote:
>
> > I mean, you can try it for yourself. Is it true that The Beatles
> > married Yoko Ono? I think not. Is it true that they wrote
> > Strawberry Fields? I think yes, even if only John wrote it
> > There is no generalizable logic to determine which properties
> > can and can't be predicated of the group. Encyclopedic knowledge
> > and similar extraneous factors enter into our judgements
>
> It can't be formalized, but it can be argued better than you're giving
> justice. "The Beatles" wrote (?) Strawberry Fields because they performed
> it collectively, and because John wrote as part of the team effort, even
> if it was only his pen and paper. Or, he wrote it, but it was their song,
> collectively
>
> It's not so hard to determine emergent properties in cases like this. If
> you want to heckle masses, argue the case of 5 pencils sitting in a jar
> There's very little emergent property there, I think, and it's probably up
> to the observer's opinion whether they are 5 individuals or a mass of 5
> members
I didn't mean to say that we cannot model the semantics of masshood
or grouphood, any more than I would want to say that cannot model
the semantics of {rinka}. But I don't think either is a job for
current BF-focused jboske. That is, they're not questions that need
to be settled now, they would take years of philosophising to settle,
and a model arrived at overhastily and then officialized would be
positively detrimental.
So all I want to argue at this stage is that in determining the
truth of {lei broda cu brode} we need to know what broda and
brode mean, and to consult our encylopedic knowledge. There is
not what I would call a 'logic' of masses or groups.
--And.