[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, And Rosta wrote: > xod: > > On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, And Rosta wrote: > > > > > John: > > > > And Rosta scripsit: > > > > > > > > > Our Forefathers spoke of Mr Bird as a mass, but there is loads of > > > > > confusion here. Lojbo 'masses' are groups = logli 'sets'. The > > > > > notion of 'group' makes more sense for things that are naturally > > > > > individuable. For stuff that isn't naturally individuable, > > > > > the notion of 'mass' is more appropriate, but is not really distinct > > > > > from Mr Stuff > > > > > > > > What counts as "natural" individuability? > > > > > > > > The-mass-of-all-ice weighs billions of tons, but Mr. Ice does not, because > > > > the (proto)typical instance of ice is much smaller. The Greenland and > > > > Antarctica ice sheets are not (proto)typical. Yet boundaries between > > > > ice blobs are rather arbitrary > > > > > > I won't say what counts as "natural" individuability, because for the > > > present discussion I think it is sufficient to say that it is that > > > criterion that allows one to predict whether a noun in English is > > > normally used as a mass noun or normally used as a count noun > > > Essentially, the issue is whether the category's properties include > > > criteria for recognizing an instance's boundary and hence recognizing > > > distinct instances > > > > That's true with water, but beans are referred to with mass nouns, when > > one can very clearly see individual beans > > Eh? One bean, two beans. Mass: "stuff the aubergine/eggplant with > bean". "Rice" would be a better example. "A rice" is not a grain of > rice. So okay, let's not say that for every predicate English diagnoses > whether it is naturally individuable. But at least English does > grammaticize the criterion of natural individuability. Yeah, rice, you're right. > > We are conflating substance-nouns with nouns that exhibit emergent > > properties by using lei for both of them. This doesn't help us, and in > > fact, I see no reason why Lojban needs a substance gadri at all. We can > > very easily refer to any quantity of beans or ice with le > > If "lo birje" is "a beer", then we need a way to say plain "beer". Why? lo birje is a beer, or it's some beer. I don't see why substance quantities need to be distinguished from individuals. The only difference is that, with individuals, we often agree on the amount that makes up an individual (how many pounds of doctor make a Doctor), whereas the size of "a beer" is more debatable. > Massifiers erase individuating boundaries, and that's what we need > here. > > I agree that we have been conflating massification with collectivization > (groups with emergent properties). I intend to distinguish them by > using lu'o for the massifier and lu'oi for the collectivizer. Hopefully > the BF will also distinguish them somehow. Hopefully we will reserve mass gadri for emergent masses, and continue the process of the erasure of the individual/substance distinction that Lojban started. -- // if (!terrorist) // ignore (); // else collect_data ();