[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Lojbab:
> At 11:01 PM 12/28/02 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
> >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
>
> Why? In English, if I drink a glass of water, I do not guarantee that
> every molecule of hydrogen dioxide has moved from the glass to my gullet
You need to understand what pragmatics is, which we personify as
Grice. I would have hoped that in these discussions we could take it
for granted that we all understand this.
If you drink a glass of water, then there is none left once you
have drunk it. What qualifies as 'none left' is determined by
ordinary criteria of relevance.
> >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,
>
> If I eat the chicken, I probably leave the bones behind. If I were
> cannibalistic, I would probably do the same with Nick
The point is that it is a predicate-specific property how much of
the sumti is affected. For some predicates the amount affected is
"approximately all relevant bits".
> > 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
>
> Why? If it doesn't mean every, then use pida'a
Does pimu mean "1 part in every 2 of", or "a half of"?
--And.