[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xod:
> On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, And Rosta wrote:
>
> > xod:
> > > On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, And Rosta wrote:
> > > > 3. It is arguably correct that the cardinality of the mass of all
> > Five(s)
> > > > is tu'o rather than pa. Since we can't conceive of what re li mu
would
> > > > be like, we can't know that there is exactly pa li mu.
> > >
> > > We know that we have one Five. And we can show that every other
> > > Five is identical. So we've proven that there is only one Five.
> >
> > No we haven't. We've shown that there isn't more than Five. But that
> > doesn't prove that it is countable, since for uncountables you can
> > also prove that there isn't more than one of them.
>
> I'm sure that whatever "uncountable" you offer as an example will be
> counted by me as unity.
You yourself had proposed {lVi re brick}, "collective of two bricks",
{lVi tu'o brick}, "mass of uncountable brick", so presumably you recognize
the difference between brick and one brick.
> > > This is not trivial. The same type of proof can prove that there are
only
> > > two integers between 0.1 and 2.1, a case that does not result in any
> > > answer which one is tempted to substitute tu'o.
> >
> > I don't dispute that there is one integer between 4.1 and 5.1. I fully
> > accept that integers are countable. But I am disputing whether fives are
> > countable.
> >
> > Likewise, I accept that people are countable, but dispute that xod is,
> > I accept that chemical elements are countable, but dispute that oxygen
> > is, and I accept that we can count kinds of Goo but dispute that we can
> > count a single kind of Goo.
>
> There's an old joke about how programmers start counting not at 1, but at
> 0. Apparently you start at 2. I'm not sure that the rest of us share that
> peculiarity.
I start counting at one, but only for things I'm sure can be counted. For
that, I need to know what re broda would look like and how it differs from
pa broda.
--And.