Received: from mail-ww0-f61.google.com ([74.125.82.61]:61968) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RIVUC-000897-Ep; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 18:07:32 -0700 Received: by wwg7 with SMTP id 7sf13468451wwg.16 for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 18:07:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=hdRcRSd7NWigBf/oZFxwUkBxH5x0JNE1autEO/tLIhI=; b=W5C0Q3AjgmjWzbyKc+wPo+WkUaBZUKh/YEqSXQYbe7JzEX/fe5savAwH8amTp44j8W dy9ioqX77BlPcrEAJN/1iAYCc7klHEC3AtxQof0MpabIi5InwBWCaEQRA9lcc/jEoLxH 1jpW8zJ+6pD7Uj86ppu8KH3Vg8xqlJrNjoJfo= Received: by 10.216.220.194 with SMTP id o44mr1420451wep.6.1319504834386; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 18:07:14 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.227.91.77 with SMTP id l13ls19711449wbm.4.gmail; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 18:07:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.57.144 with SMTP id c16mr14705wbh.0.1319504833336; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 18:07:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.57.144 with SMTP id c16mr14704wbh.0.1319504833309; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 18:07:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f181.google.com (mail-wy0-f181.google.com [74.125.82.181]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t38si9050521wbo.2.2011.10.24.18.07.13 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 24 Oct 2011 18:07:13 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.181 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.181; Received: by mail-wy0-f181.google.com with SMTP id 5so8173195wyh.40 for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 18:07:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.88.70 with SMTP id z48mr4043751wee.46.1319504833088; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 18:07:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.75] (87-194-76-177.bethere.co.uk. [87.194.76.177]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id gd18sm42114137wbb.5.2011.10.24.18.07.10 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 24 Oct 2011 18:07:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4EA60BBC.1040707@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 02:07:08 +0100 From: And Rosta User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110920 Thunderbird/3.1.15 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable References: <20111022030801.GG28229@gonzales> <1319308068.11247.YahooMailRC@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20111023203658.GH28229@gonzales> <1319404501.57946.YahooMailRC@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20111023213304.GA3230@gonzales> <20111024151402.GA3062@gonzales> <4EA5ACD4.4030106@gmail.com> <20111024184651.GC3062@gonzales> <4EA5F890.6070501@gmail.com> <20111025002558.GA27114@gonzales> In-Reply-To: <20111025002558.GA27114@gonzales> X-Original-Sender: and.rosta@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.181 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=and.rosta@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.0 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / Martin Bays, On 25/10/2011 01:25: > * Tuesday, 2011-10-25 at 00:45 +0100 - And Rosta: > >> Martin Bays, On 24/10/2011 19:46: >>> * Monday, 2011-10-24 at 19:22 +0100 - And Rosta: >>> >>>> Martin Bays, On 24/10/2011 16:14: >>>>> * Sunday, 2011-10-23 at 18:57 -0400 - John E. Clifford: >>>>>> On kinds, my position is just that kinds (if you want to use that >>>>>> word) are just biggest bunches viewed in certain ways and so call fo= r >>>>>> nothing other than things of the ordinary sort. >>>>> >>>>> I seem to be in agreement. But I guess no-one else is, so far. >>>> >>>> I don't think me and xorxes disagree with you and John. If there is >>>> disagreement, it is over how many are in the biggest bunches. You, >>>> I gather, would say that there is only one possible cardinality for >>>> the biggest bunch of broda, whereas xorxes and I would say that the >>>> universe, or universe of discourse, can be understood in infinitely >>>> many different ways, such that across these different ways the >>>> cardinality for the biggest bunch of broda varies from one to >>>> infinity. I think xorxes and me would also say that this holds also of >>>> referents of {la}, and also pronouns like {mi, do}, and that these >>>> biggest bunches are treated like individuals. >>> >>> This last - reification of bunches as individuals - is the only point o= f >>> disagreement I would consider key. >> >> Would you say that the referents of la& do are always treated like >> individuals? Or that when the referents are individuals they're >> treated as individuals and when the referents are bunches they're >> treated as bunches? If the latter, then we might still agree. > > I think the referent of any term, {la foob} and {do} included, is > a bunch. There are minimal ("atomic") bunches, i.e. ones with no > subbunches other than the bunch itself - we can call these individuals. > We can say that a bunch is a bunch of the individuals which are its > minimal subbunches. Encouragingly, then, I think we're in agreement here. =20 > (Note that a quantity of water is an individual, not a bunch of > subquantities of water.) > >>> Of course I wouldn't claim that there is one fixed universe of discours= e >>> within which all lojban expressions must be interpreted. >>> >>> I would consider it perverse for you to make what appears to be general >>> statement about lions, and yet have only one or a few lions in your >>> universe for the statement to apply to. But that's because I would only >>> accept lions, and not the kind 'lions', as lions. >> >> It depends how many lions there are. You're free to think it perverse >> of me to think there is only one lion (-- that all lions are one and >> the same), just as I might think it is perverse of you to think there >> is only one Obama (-- that all Obamas are one and the same). Given >> that we may disagree how many lions and Obamas there are, it can't be >> reasonable to insist on our agreeing on the number of lions and Obamas >> as a prerequisite to us communicating in Lojban. > > But unless you're being *really* perverse, we don't actually disagree on > how many lions there are, just on what the phrase "how many lions there > are" means. No, I do mean we disagree on how many lions there are. Or rather, we disagr= ee on criteria for deciding how many lions there are -- especially on crite= ria for deciding whether Lion X and Lion Y are the same or different. The d= isagreement isn't about what "how many lions there are" means. I think the criteria for counting lions should be left up to the individual= speaker's personal theory of lion-counting; it's not for Lojban to prescri= be a particular theory of lion-counting. However, I also think it could be = good for Lojban to lexicalize a number of different basic criteria for coun= ting things, so that speakers may be linguistically explicit about their pr= eferred lion-counting theory. --And. --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.