[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Nick: > --- In jboske@yahoogroups.com, "And Rosta" <a.rosta@l...> wrote: > > In my ontology, Nick is what I have been calling Substance > > In Nick's terms, he is, I think, Atom rather than Stuff. > > Eeyup > > > But how many Nick are there? What would it be like for > > there to be, say, three Nick, and by what criteria would > > they count as Nick? Maybe if I could answer that question, > > I would decide that there are three Nick, or more likely > > that there are ci'ipa Nick. But when I think of Nick, > > am I really quantifying over ci'ipa moments of Nick? > > Intuitively it doesn't feel like I am. But I'm quite > > happy to say that su'o da, a Bit of Spacetime, is Nick > > Say it, And, say it. Nick is unquantified, and so is Gold > > > So all in all, I feel that the cardinality of Nick is > > Mr Number (or perhaps Mr Za'uno, because I CAN tell the > > difference between Nick and no Nick), and the same goes for, > > say, gold. If I look at that which is gold, it is similarly > > impossible to count it. > > > > I can count moments of Nick and bits of gold, but I > > can't count Nick or gold > > Bingo. Bingo Bingo Bingo. Nick is a Kind of Atom, and gold is a Kind of Stuff > > We have our solution! See the message I've just sent off. If we can distinguish between intensional kinds and 'extensional kinds' -- "that which is Mr Broda", "that which realizes Mr Broda" -- then all is okay. The notion of 'Extensional kinds' doesn't work for countables, only for uncountables. That's why I've been calling this notion 'Substance'. --And.