[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
John:
> And Rosta scripsit:
>
> > So what do you think is the difference in meaning between
> > "the whole of X" (as distinct from "every part of X") and just
> > "X"?
>
> Why, the obvious one. I drink water (loi djacu) every day, but I do
> not drunk the whole of Water (piro loi djacu) every day: that would
> imply that I drink the ocean dry. The implicit quantifier "pisu'o"
> is motivated by sentences such as these
You are being perversely confusing here.
You drink {pisu'o loi djacu} = part of the mass of water.
You do not drink every part of the mass of water.
If you drink the mass of water, then you probably drink every part
of it. But if you touch the mass of water, then you probably
touch just part of it. Likewise, if I eat Nick then I probably eat
(almost) every part of him, but if I touch Nick then I probably
just touch part of him.
The mass of all water is just like any individual. For some
predicates to be predicated of an individual they must be predicated
of every part; for others they must be predicated of just some
part.
Your reasoning is based on (a) deliberately failing to distinguish
the mass from part of the mass, and (b) taking {pi ro} to mean
"every part of", which we have already agreed to be error.
> > I'll think about it. But either {pixra} is ambiguous or they are not
> > pixra. They are evokers, I would say
>
> So if an abstract (better: non-objective) painting is intended to, and
> does, evoke an emotion such as disgust or confusion, then disgust or
> confusion is, or is not, its referent?
Is not its referent. If I hit you with the intent of causing you pain,
is your pain the referent of my blow?
--And.