[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
And:
xorxes:
>> The difference that concerns me is that they behave
>> differently with respect to scope issues. "The whole" yields
>> a singular term, "each bit of" does not
>I can see that, but on that reading of "the whole of X", I can't
>see how it differs from "X".
If we're talking extensionalist substances or collectives or sets --- I still don't
see why this is a problem.
>You are wanting a notion of 'bit' not as arbitrarily delimited
>(whereby "pimu" means "1 in every 2 arbitrarily but equally
>delimited and sized bits of") but as having properties such
>as spatial integrity. I think that whole fractions -- that is,
>parts that have integrity -- must be done by selbri.
That's a spisa in my terminology; but that's what I have {lo} + Substance do: lo
djacu = a water.
>By "a large bit of", you must mean "a proportionally-large
>bit of", right? Otherwise it would just be "poi brada".
>But you want fractions that can, as it were, be derived
>by a single knife stroke. So to get what you want, we need
>a way to say "x1 is a spatial whole consisting of x arb-bits
>in every y of the whole substance of x2". Perhaps some sort
>of LAhE? That is, LAhE + fraction + broda? The LAhE would
>treat the fraction as a whole (not, of course, a whole
>broda). I don't think a collectivizer on its own is
>enough to do this; you need a collectivizer that collectively
>has the property of being whole. What about "lu'a pi so'i"?
But that is just {le djacu}, right? As in, pa lo piso'a lei djacu, which is in turn a
kind of pa lo piso'a loi pa lo pisu'o loi djacu --- take some water; take a piece
of that (individual, spisa) --- take most of its substance --- make a piece out of
that...