[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la lojbab cusku di'e
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.
In that case we are in agreement. If {lo blosazri} can be sailor
goo, then so can {loi blosazri}, of course.
> >(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.
In that case, I don't understand your comment about the sailors not being cpana le barloi.
> >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.
My point is that they will be loi rismi in the same contexts in which they are lo rismi. lo/loi only indicate how they enter into relationships with other things.
> 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.
Every group of things has emergent properties. "Being a group" is an emergent property.
> > > >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 {pa nanmu} can be a group of men, then {mi ca ca'o viska pa
naurka'u} is more precise, it is not ambiguous as to how many
men I saw.
>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)
Right. Then there are broda that can't be divided into many broda, which is what you were denying.
For every broda there is some division of broda sufficiently fine that pa broda cannot be divided into so'i broda.
Yes, but my claim is that for some broda, pa broda can never be divided into so'i broda.
>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.
Good. Then a predicate meaning "molecule of water" is not of type "substance", like djacu and rismi are.
> >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.
We were distinguishing the Collective and Substance meanings
that loi/lei are claimed to have. John (and presumably you as
well) argue that loi/lei has a blend of both meanings. I'm
arguing that Substance is incompatible with inner quantifiers.
I also argue that anything describable as {loi broda} in one
relationship can be described as {lo broda} in the same
situation but participating in another relationship. In other
words, lo/loi do not describe the things, they only indicate
how the things enter into relationships with other things,
whether individually or all together.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 3 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU=
http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_stopmorespam_3mf