[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
John: >And Rosta scripsit: > > >> because, as xorxes notes, it leads to errors like saying >> "loi nanmu weighs 100kg e 1000kg" is true. > >I hold that to be true, not false. It's possible to say all sorts >of things that look contrary about masses, that being the nature of them. >Of course, straight negations like "loi nanmu na -weighs 1000 kg" are >still false. I consider it false for 2 reasons. Firstly, I don't accept that -- unless jbomass reallz is defined by this counterintuitive & unnatural logic -- wholes automatically inherit properties of parts and vice versa. Secondlz, I can accept that a portion weighs 100kg & another portion weighs 1000kg, but not that the same portion has both weights. If jbomass is defined bz this loony logic, then I will retract, but in that case we on jboske are wasting our time in trying to work out how SL can express basic notions like Collective & Substance. Better just let people who know CLL well, such as John & Jordan define jbomass once and for all, and then jboske can work with that official definition. --And. When words aren't enough - Vodafone live! A new world of colour, sounds, picture messages and information on your mobile. <a href="http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;4909903;7724245;q?http://www.vodafone.co.uk/live";> Click here</a> to find out more.