[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Nick:
#As is very clear, I just don't get what And, Jorge and xod clearly get.
#So I'll let them be able to say what they want (without getting it),
#and move on.
#
#My solutions, having been conceived of in 3-D space, have assumed that
#all entities have at least 2 (and presumably transfinite bits); that
#atoms had a cardinality as the inner and a count as the outer; and that
#collectives had a cardinality of bits on the inner and a size on the
#outer.
#
#There are abstractions that do not have parts in any sensible way. Like
#fondness.
#
#These things are atoms, trivially (they don't contain, so nothing they
#contain is P(x).) These things are stuff, trivially: all none of what
#they contain is P(x). (Here's the perniciousness of the
#non-importing-ro, but whatever.)
#
#So it's silly to fractionally quantify them: they have no bits to
#quantify over. And if there is any number of them, there is only one of
#them: their quantification is trivial.
#
#I contend that for anything 3-D, there are always 3-D bits: it is the
#nature of 3-D space. But my colleagues want to consider the possibility
#of not considering the entity as having bits, but of thinking of it in
#the same way as fondness.
#
#I think this is malrarbau codswallop, but Lojban has to be
#metaphysically parsimonious, and we've got to be able to speak of
#fondness anyway, so fine, they can have it.
We, or at least I, are not saying that a 3D thing doesn't have bits. We're
saying that something (a) can have the property of being broda, (b) can
have the same cardinality as fondnes, (c) can be 3D and so have bits,
(d) does not have bits that have the property of being broda.
#I have my way, and speak of piro loi ci'ipa djacu
#They have their way, and speak of tu'o loi tu'o djacu (there are no
#bits --- here tu'o means 'no number', not just 'no prenex'), or pa lo
#pa djacu (which is tantamount to tu'o [un-prenexed] lo pa djacu, but
#restricted to this world --- so, pa lo pa djacu-in-this-world, or pa lo
#pa ca'a djacu.)
#
#Does this work?
I think {ma'u (lo(i) ro ma'u) djacu} would do, if {ma'u} is used to mean
"a number about which nothing can be determined save that it is
greater than 0".
I would like to give you and others time to digest what has been said
so far before intoducing more concrete proposals. But I am thinking
that it might be possible to, in a CLL/SL-conformant way, analyse
lVi as referring to things that there there are ma'u of. Fractional
quantification applied to lVi would give a proportion of bits or
members. Cardinal quantification applied to lVi changes the
gadri to the corresponding lV and counts members. Inner cardinality
would count the number of constituents of lVi that are broda
-- rosu'eci'ino (the collective of all individuals), roci'ipa (collective
of all bits), or roma'u (collective of all substance).
--And.