[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la lojbab cusku di'e
>No, I'm talking of {loi blosazri}.
But the referent of that (being quantified pisu'o) is contextually
determined. If the context is the activity of operating a boat, then any
sailor goo is not relevant except to the extent that it causes boat
operators to slip on deck or to get nauseous. i.e. sailor goo is not
piso'u loi blosazri ku poi sazri le bloti
We agree about that.
There is no claim implicit in loi blosazri that it caca'a sazri lo bloti, only that it pujacajaba ka'e sazri lo bloti
Ok. It also applies to {lo blosazri}.
(and perhaps not even then, since there may be fairweather "sailors" who know only how to passive ride the boat - I've hear that historically, the British admiralty fit this description, and it would be an argument whether a British admiral sazri lo bloti if he only ordered and never acted to operate the boat, but he WOULD be part of loi blosazri, the team/mass that operates the boat, and might be so even after a cannonball spread admiral goo on the deck, if he was still intact enough to give orders.
So you're saying that {loi blosazri} is not just the massification
of {lo'i blosazri}, because there are members of {loi blosazri}
that are not members of {lo'i blosazri}. That is not collective
loi. This is where our understanding of loi differs.
He is part of the mass, and he recognizes his body parts on the deck as (a less-than-functional but still intrinsically inalienable) part of him, so they are also part of the mass, but no more involved in operating the boat than his appendix which still might be attached to his body. So why is the sailor goo less a part of loi blosazri than the admiral's appendix.
I didn't say they weren't parts of it. I only say that we shouldn't have gadri for parts.
(actually, even with intact sailors, it is probably only the soles of their feet that are cpana le barloi, and that is true only if they are barefoot).
That's not how I understand {cpana}. If a cube is cpana
another cube, it is not just the contact surface that is cpana,
it is the whole cube.
> >But rice pulp and rice flour still are rismi, and could be lei rismi if the> >properties that you care about still are present. > >Ok, if they are still rice then they are rismi. No problem. But "they" aren't still rice, but "it" is still rice - is has lost its clear divisibility.
By "they" I meant "rice pulp" and "rice flour". If rice pulp
is a quantity of rice then it is rismi, if rice flour is a
quantity of rice then it is rismi. That depends on the meaning
of rismi, not on the meaning of loi. They would be properly
described as {lo rismi} as well.
> >I am not sure that pa nanmu necessarily has to be a single male
> >human.
>
>How about {pa naurka'u}?
I don't know any claim that can be made of pa naurka'u.
{mi ca ca'o viska pa naurka'u} for example.
If you take your typical naurka'u and remove his appendix, is he still lo naurka'u?
Yes.
How about if you shave his head, start chopping off his fingers, etc. In order to be naurka'u, you would not be able to remove anything and still call it naurka'u, and we don't have that clear an idea of the essence of nanmu
As long as he stays alive I would say he is still pa naurka'u, wouldn't you?
>Or are you saying that any {pa broda}
>must be divisible into {so'i broda}?
No. Only that lei pa broda may be divisible into parts, not all of which
are necessary to still say that pida'a lei pa broda cu borda
Then you are not disagreeing with me. I was talking
about the divisibility of {pa broda}. You keep shifting
to {lei broda}. What you say applies equally well to
{pida'a le pa broda} doesn't it?
The NORMAL use of nanmu, at least for English speakers, will probably be for pa nanmu to be more or less equivalent to "one man", but I don't want to exclude the possibility of it referring to "one maneople".
Ok. My point does not depend on the meaning of {nanmu}
in particular. Just on the fact that for some brodas, {pa broda}
can't be divided into {so'i broda} and for other brodas it can.
naurka'u is not necessarily any better than nanmu, since we don't have a clear definition of what constitutes the smallest indivisible unit of naurka'u such that it still remains naurka'u.
I don't care about naurka'u in particular. Choose a broda
for which you think we do have a clear definition of what
constitutes the smallest indivisible unit. Perhaps {kantu} itself?
Would you agree that if you divide {pa kantu be ko'a} you can't
end up with {so'i kantu be ko'a}?
Any broda can be considered a substance. Some are not usefully considered a substance, but all MAY be.
Yes, but that does not call for a substance gadri. {lo broda} can
be a substance in that sense.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU=
http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_addphotos_3mf