[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
In the light of these sensible comments, I think it would be helpful to
think in terms of pluralities and of properties applying to the plurality
either collectively or distributively.
In 3rd ExSol, {loi za'u broda} is a plurality with brodahood applying
distributively. In {loi za'u broda cu brode}, brodehood applies
collectively. In {ro loi za'u broda cu brode} (or {ro fi'u loi
za'u broda cu brode}, in xorxes's revision), brodehood applies
distributively.
What distinguishes a za'umei from a pamei is that the
collective/distributive distinction applies to za'umei but is
neutralized for a pamei.
--And.
> On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Nick Nicholas wrote:
>
> > >On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Nick Nicholas wrote:
> >
> > >Let's not lose sight of the fact that a collective is not signfied by >any
> > >particular quantification, but by the presence of emergent phenomena. It
> > >is numerically equivalent to plurality without emergent properties
> >
> > Hold your horses, though. Right now I am defining *only* pluralities
> > Whether they have emergent properties or not is something I'll deal
> > with later
> >
> > In fact, with respect to some predicates (distributives), it is
> > clearly nonsense to say that the given property is emergent: if the
> > Beatles die, all four die. What i am trying to do is be able to talk
> > about a group of four as distinct from four individuals. Such a group
> > will necessarily have at least one emergent property (we belong to a
> > group). But whether a given property is emergent of them or
> > distributed of them depends on the property. If the property is
> > distributed of them and not emergent, then the collective is of
> > course identical to quantification over individuals
>
>
>
> The emergent property of "is in a plurality" is a trivial, impotent one
> that I'm not sure should be discussed at all. It removes the distinct
> meaning of "emergent property" by allowing us to treat ANY conceivable set
> as a collective, completely detaching the concept from testable reality
>
>
>
> > But again: I'm saying there is no such thing as x is a collective,
> > but only x is a collective *with respect to* a property
>
>
>
> You seem to be conflating "collective" with "plurality", which is the
> politically neutral term I have introduced to speak of over-unity
> cardinalities without implying mass, set, or collective. Collective
> *implies* emergent properties
>
>
> > Bob, do not tell me there is no such thing as a distributive
> > property. If 'die' confuses you (because you are generalising it to
> > "cease to function", rather than leaving it as "cease to breathe"),
> > then change it to 'are human beings'. "The Beatles are human" implies
> > "each Beatle is human". So humanity is not an emergent property, but
> > a distributive one
>
>
> It's not distributive, it's held (and retained) by the individuals even as
> they join a collective. And "is a human" is not a property of The Beatles
> "The Beatles are human" does not refer to the collective at all, but to
> the members of the collective; the "are" gives that away
>
> --
>
> The service done to Lojban and the time we have left for other pursuits
> like the BF is proportional to the speed at which we ditch that
> "lojbanmass" abomination and base gadri on solid ground! Nick, take off
> your BF hat (which you should not have yet donned), propose some clean,
> radical solutions, and then if you must, inveigh against them later at the
> BF
>
>
> --
> // if (!terrorist)
> // ignore ();
> // else
> collect_data ();
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> jboske-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>