[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
john:
> And Rosta scripsit:
> >
> > John:
> > > Jorge Llambias scripsit:
> > >
> > > > Sometimes we do need counting with the collective sense:
> > > > {oi mi na ka'e bevri lei bi birje}, "I can't carry the 8 beers!"
> > > > I could carry each of them, but not the eight as a whole
> > >
> > > Yes, certainly, inside quantification is not an issue: it can appear
> > > in any of the various gadri
> >
> > I know this is the line you take, but if you can count the parts, then
> > the parts have not lost their boundaries,
>
> Not yet, no. Inner quantifiers may make little sense in some contexts;
> what would work for "lei djacu", e.g.? But in other contexts they make
> very good sense. All loX quantifiers are somewhat doubtful, of course
Inner PA makes good sense when the predicate is interpreted countably,
and not otherwise. IMO.
> > and if you can measure
> > the cardinality then you can put intrinsic boundaries to the whole
> > In both cases you end up with properties the lack of which defines
> > masses/substance
>
> I don't follow this about boundaries. The mass Gold (piro loi solji)
> has perfectly sharp boundaries, but is a substance just the same
Ah, an 'intrinsic boundary' is one you can see 'from the inside'
-- the nature of the object is such that you can determine where
it ends without looking at the world around it. With loi solji,
otoh, the boundary is defined as that between what is gold and not
gold -- from inside lor solji you can't tell where it's going to
end.
--And.