[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Nick:
> And, because I don't have the time to lawyer this yet (and I have not
> even looked at CLL!), deem everything I said in my latest to be my
> proposal, not a statement of SL. My intent is to make a proposal
> backward compatible with SL, but not to state what SL is, because SL
> doesn't even know what a substance is
>
> What I do not want is a situation where {loi remna} cannot refer to
> the subsance of a human; because SL clearly states that it can
I'll comment on it in the light of this, then.
> You can halve anything. My contention is, though, that since
> individuals don't have halves (half an And is not Andm, half an apple
> is not an apple), halving an individual gives you substance (half of
> And is And-goo, not a human being And.)
Half a piece of string is still a piece of string. Half a ball of
wax is still a ball of wax. Okay, these aren't individuals by
your definition, but they are countables, and as far as I can
see are lojban individuals. Individual is not the same as
'quantum'.
Furthermore, even if nicolaic fractional quantificaation yields
substance, the input can be a nicolaic individual -- quantification
is over bits of nic-individual.
> I do not want quantifiers to
> be able to convert between ontological types, and turn individuals
> into substances --- reasonably so: quantifiers quantify, their
> quantificand is meant to be already given.
But that can't be, if the quantificand is a sumti. Put gadri
aside for a moment and consider {ro mi} and {pi ro mi}: {mi}
on its own refers to a su'omei, so if you add a quantifier
it must underlying express {(pi)PA broda be me}, where the
value for broda is either prescribed or glorked from context.
So the quantificand is not (necessarily) already given.
That said, I myself don't think that outer PA should determine
whether the description is an individual- or collective- or
substance-defining property. That IMO is a job for inner PA,
or, if you want to stick closer to SL, for the gadri.
> So I prefer to convert the
> individual to be halved into substance first, and then fractionally
> quantify over that
You're quantifying over bits of substance, not over substance.
Since the same fractional quantifier can arguably quantify over
members of a collective or set, too, I agree that the lo-phrase
before application of the quantifier must be converted into the
desired type.
--And.