[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jorge Llambias scripsit:
> 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.
There is a conceptual confusion here, but I don't know if it's real or
merely terminological. Masses have parts, sets have members; talking
of sets entails that the members are distinguishable, whereas talking of
masses makes no such assumption. Not every part of lo blosazri is itself
lo blosazri, but every such part is included in loi blosazri regardless.
This extends to such things as the ship's cook's wooden leg.
> 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.
True, and I would even say that when walking outside I am cpana the Earth
dispite the intervention of socks and shoes. But I would not say that I
am cpana the Earth when on the 12th floor of a building.
--
Knowledge studies others / Wisdom is self-known; John Cowan
Muscle masters brothers / Self-mastery is bone; jcowan@hidden.email
Content need never borrow / Ambition wanders blind; www.ccil.org/~cowan
Vitality cleaves to the marrow / Leaving death behind. --Tao 33 (Bynner)