Re: gadri

posts: 2

> Use this thread to discuss the page:: gadri

The above is not how I understand masses. "A mass has the union of qualities of all of its members" is not how it works. A mass has many properties that none of its members have, and lacks many properties that each or some of its members have. It also shares some properties with all or some of its members, but definitely not all of their properties. Examples:

le gerku cu citka pa jipci
Each of the dogs eats one chicken.

lei gerku cu citka mu jipci
The dogs (together) eat five chicken.

If each of five dogs eats one chicken, then it is false that the five
dogs together eat one chicken. Therefore the property of each member
("eats one chicken") is not inherited by the mass.


  • Why isn't that covered by unioning their properties? If each of the 5 dogs ate one chicken, then mass has the qualities {ate chicken1;ate chicken2;ate chicken3;...}. lei gerku cu citka le mu jipci is just a reduction of that, no? That said, if you have a better wording for the above, feel free to change it and remove this discussion. — mi'e .djorden.
    • Ahh, now that I re-read I see your point. The mass doesn't inheirit the quality of eating one chicken. I'll think of a better way to word it and change it, unless someone else does first. — mi'e .djorden.
      • The traditional wording is "has the sum of the properties of its members" with the understanding that "sum" includes literal sums of numerical properties, resultants of joint activities ("the team a mass won the game" or "the three boys carried the piano"), logical sums (disjunctions — your "unions"), and an open-ended range of other compoundings. pc