[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
John:
> And Rosta scripsit:
>
> > You drink {pisu'o loi djacu} = part of the mass of water
> > You do not drink every part of the mass of water
>
> No doubt, and I do not drink the whole of it either.
Whether you drink the whole of it remains to be decided. Relying
on English intuitions isn't very helpful, because "the whole of"
is Griceanly construed as "every bit of".
> The difference
> between "the whole of" and "every part of" is that the latter is a
> universal quantification over parts, whereas the former does not even
> require that there be any parts
"every part of" doesn't require that there be parts either. But
if there is a whole then there must be parts -- or can you think
of counterexamples? Obviously 'part' here is being used in the
sense of 'bit', 'portion'.
> > 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.
>
> Which is why "touch" is a 3-place predicate in Lojban involving a locus,
> but "eat" is 2-place. The cases are not comparable. (In fact "pencu"
> also has a place for the instrument/body part.)
So in Lojban you touch *the whole* on a part? Is that different from
touching *part* on a part?
Anyway, pick some other predicate, like "see x" or "think about x" or
"admire x" or "enjoy x" or "label x" -- here the predicate can be
true of the whole by virtue of being true only of a part. It is
a predicate-specific property whether there is part--whole transitivity.
> No, I can't accept that doing something to X can be identified with
> doing something to the whole of X where X is a jbomass. When X is an
> individual, perhaps, but jbomasses aren't individuals
Perhaps jbomasses aren't jboindividuals, but I can't see any reason
why jbomasses wouldn't be individuals. But let's just say that
"individual" is so ill-defined that we can't argue fruitfully
about whether something is or isn't an individual.
--And.