[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Retract Ontology #2

Retract my substance definition: Jorge's counterexample with the solid cube is correct (EzAnAy:P(y), EzAnAy:~P(y) ). A substance is something of which P is true, and which does not contain an atom of P. A group is something which does contain an atom of P, whether or not P is true of the entire group (to allow demergent properties.)
For any property P, there is a property P-goo which is true of all possible components (memzilfendi) of P. Fractional quantification of anything --- individual, substance, or group --- ranges over P-goo, not P.
My idea of portions is all wrong: something is countable not if it is a memzilfendi of a, but if it is a *non-contiguous* memzilfendi of a. Otherwise, every glass of water can be said to be one, two, fifty, or infinity --- but we really want only the one.
This does not generalise to groups, since groups consist of atoms (inherently non-contiguous) or non-contiguous portions of substance. Groups are divided into subgroups, possibly of onesomes, and counting groups means counting non-atomic subgroups of the big group. But everything is non-contiguous. I have to think on this more.
I'm going to start putting my ontology up on a web page, to retain my sanity. I'll attempt Ontology #3 and put it up tonight. 


--
**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****
* Dr Nick Nicholas,  French & Italian Studies       nickn@hidden.email *
  University of Melbourne, Australia             http://www.opoudjis.net
*    "Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity of locutional rendering, the       *
  circumscriptional appelations are excised." --- W. Mann & S. Thompson,
* _Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organisation_, 1987.    *
**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****