[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
John:
> And Rosta scripsit:
>
> > (ii) Let (tu'o)lVi mean "Mr Xod-collective of", where a xod-collective
is a
> > kind of group that shares none of its properties with its constituents;
>
> So a small group of large objects and a large group of small objects are
> xod-collectives, but not a s.g. of s.o. or a l.g. of l.o.? Of what
> utility is such a notion?
>
> Or do you mean that it *essentially* (i.e. non-accidentally) shares none
> of its properties? If so, how is it distinct from a mathematical set?
I don't understand para 2, but you should explain what you mean, not let it
pass, for if math sets do do xod-collectives, then that is an important
conclusion & XXS is in need of revision.
As for the first para, the example is not very well-chosen, because the
sets and objects can be seen as large/small in different ways, by different
standards, and one obvious wriggle out is to say that we are dealing with
different predicates (is a large set, vs is a large object; has many members
vs has much volume). However, let us ignore the wriggle, and my answer is
that the ill-expressed intent of XXS is that {lVi cmalu cu broda} would
entail
that the referent of lVi cmalu is not small, while {lVi broda cu cmalu}
would
entail that the members of lVi broda are not small. But the intent is that
you could have a small set of small things yet talk of them as a
xod-collective,
so long as the property attributed to the xod-collective is not one shared
with its members.
--And.