[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la djan cusku di'e
> 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.
I'm referring to the things that are counted by the inner
quantifier. In {loi ro blosazri}, ro refers to every member
of an underlying set. Lojbab is saying that the admiral
is not a member of {lo'i ro blosazri} but is still somehow
included in {loi ro blosazri}.
Not every part of lo blosazri is itself lo blosazri, but every such part is included in loi blosazri regardless.
"Included" in what sense? Surely it is not counted by the inner quantifier?
This extends to such things as the ship's cook's wooden leg.
So {lei re jukpa} could refer to the "cook-and-leg" mass?
The leg is a part of {lei pa jukpa} as much as it is a
part of {le pa jukpa}, but is not a member of {le'i pa jukpa}.
> 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.
Depends on the context. If we're discussing whether we're on the Earth or on the Moon, then being on the 12th floor of a building does count as being cpana the Earth, I would say. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963