[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
At 02:57 PM 12/20/02 +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
la lojbab cusku di'e
>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}.
OK
>(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}.
I don't recognize the referent "members of {loi blosazri}" but presuming that I know what you mean by it, I think that the members of lo'i blosazri potentially include sailor goo.
>(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.
If a 3 meter cube is atop a 2 meter cube (thus overhanging in at least two directions), is it still cpana, or is part of it cpana, or is it unimportant/undefined to distinguish whether part or all of it is cpana. I think that at best it is undefined. I made no effort to define the gismu that precisely.
>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.
No, I think it is based on the meaning of loi. Whether those things are rismi depends on what the relevant emergent properties are for the context.
They would be properly described as {lo rismi} as well.
Possibly. But we don't use lo rismi to refer to pieces that do not evidence emergent properties.
> > >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.
You can say it, but I have no idea what you saw as distinct from pa nanmu.
>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?
Even if he doesn't stay alive he is still pa naurka'u. The only requirement of naurka'u is that dividing it in some way doesn't give you remei (of whatever)
> >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}.
Because I don't think in terms of fractional units of le, but of multiples, and vice versa with lei.
What you say applies equally well to
{pida'a le pa broda} doesn't it?
Probably, but I would make different claims using pida'a le pa broda.
>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.
For every broda there is some division of broda sufficiently fine that pa broda cannot be divided into so'i broda. For water it is a water molecule; for human beings it is a single person. For rice it is probably a grain of rice, but I'm not sure because I don't know how we count particles of rice flour or rice paste that might be smaller than a grain of rice in size.
>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}?
Yes. That would apply to a molecule of water for example.
>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.
I'm not sure I am calling for a substance gadri. That's the problem with these silly arguments; I've forgotten what the point was several days ago.
{lo broda} can be a substance in that sense.
lo broda can be a substance; but I'm not sure about that ki'a sense. lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@hidden.email Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org