Re: fractionators

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

la djan cusku di'e

> Is what is done by a part, done by the whole? If so, fractionators are
> useless.

Also it would be hard to say things like "the books weigh 3kg", meaning
that the whole mass weighs that. If what is done by the part is done by
the whole, then {[piro] lei cukta} would have all kinds of weighs at the
same time. Very weird and useless.

> If, on the other hand, only what involves participation by all
> the parts is done by the whole, then fractionators are not useless, because
> they enable us to say that "some fraction of the in-mind mass" did
> such-and-such.

I don't agree with this view either. There are things done by all the
parts that are not done by the whole, like for example weighing 0.5kg.
The whole mass is a new entity with its own properties, sometimes related
to the properties of the parts, sometimes not. There is no strict
relationship between the properties of one and of the other.


> In fact, there is a tension in Lojban between individuals and masses.  The
> standard formulation is that masses result from the blobification of
> individuals; but there is an alternative formulation that says that everything
> is really a mass, and "le/lo" is just a contrivance which allows us to ignore
> the mass nature of things when such an attitude is useful.  "mi", e.g. is
> really a mass, but we feel free to treat ourselves as individuals when this
> is handy, and assert that "I did such-and-such" rather than "Some part of
> the me-blob did such-and-such."

A mass is one individual. Many individuals can form part of a mass. The
mass has properties. The individuals composing the mass have other properties.

This is not incompatible with "mi" being a mass. In some contexts, it may be
a mass of one component: a single person. It is always an individual because
a mass is one entity. It is not always an individual person, it is an
individual mass.

And:
> > A mass is a singularity: why not treat it like other singulars,
> > e.g. "pa lo"?

John:
> Because it may be useful to treat separate portions, thus:
>
>         le re nanmu cu citka [pisu'o] lei pa plise
>         The two men eat part(s) of the one apple.
>
> vs.
>
>         [pisu'o] lei pa plise cu se citka le re nanmu
>         A part of the one apple is eaten by each of the men.
>
> The first is straightforward, the latter impossible or disgusting.

You can say {le re nanmu cu citka pisu'o le pa plise}, changing {le}
to {lei} for a single individual has practically no effect. Even if
you prefer {lei}, then what's wrong with requiring {pisu'o} in that
context?

And:
>  (b) why we want to make a distinction between pisuho lei and pisuho le
>      [ah, I think I see it: pisuho lei re plise is a fraction of the
>      combination of the two apples, whereas pisuho le re plise would
>      be a fraction of each of the two apples?]

I think that would be the best interpretation of {pisu'o le re plise}.

> At any rate, I think "lei" should behave exactly like "le pa", and
> "loi" exactly like "lo pa".

I agree wholeheartedly.

(I take it you are talking about their behaviour vis-a-vis fractionators,
not that {lei broda} should mean {le pa broda}. This is obvious, but just
in case your sentence is too out of context.)

Jorge