From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Dec 15 11:44:21 2005
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 15 Dec 2005 11:44:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.54)
	id 1Emz1G-0004mG-BT
	for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 11:44:02 -0800
Received: from web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.120])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.54)
	id 1Emz1E-0004lz-AD
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 11:44:02 -0800
Received: (qmail 33302 invoked by uid 60001); 15 Dec 2005 19:43:59 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net;
  h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
  b=aFhmtfvwzJ21U52eoI1SUvXK5p+ns8/Evks24y7p5kYtsIZm5K+cb45P67ebcC908fjmPcOfTTUFKbCkU/uGH9kRpLyJjqWFJDk1dWfWM9FnmHY/NHwJjVpOg0GoQRVCN3S1E0XAjHkV+gvxKbEhKyJ+lut5KEzb4QiBBnHjtQM=  ;
Message-ID: <20051215194359.33300.qmail@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Received: from [70.230.168.167] by web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 11:43:59 PST
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 11:43:59 -0800 (PST)
From: John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [lojban] Re: A Proposed Explanation of {gunma}
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
In-Reply-To: <925d17560512151123i1c08e37boac33ce3c9f373bed@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/)
X-archive-position: 10899
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

--- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 12/15/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, that would be nice.  I assume that he
> > objects to the reification that seems to be
> > involved in the use of a term like "bunch." 
> But
> > the *entity* is inessential so long as
> whatever
> > we are talking about has a relation like "in"
> > ("among" in McKay) with all the relevant
> > properties.
> 
> I think McKay would argue that bunches are yet
> another form
> of "singularism". In his second chapter,
> "Against singularism",
> he clearly states that plural language does not
> presuppose the
> truth of the basic mereological principle:
> "whenever some things
> exist, their fusion exists". Bunches, as you
> have defined them,
> do presuppose this basic principle.

This seems to me to be an odd position for McKay
to take, wrapped up probably in another bit of
anti-entity-ism.  It seems clear to me that if
there are two things in a domain then they both
may be among the values assigned to a variable or
the referents of some denoting expression.  And
that is all that the bunches theses claim; it is
not required that they are among the referents of
some expression.  Plural quantification lacks any
way of talking about plurals and so cannot even
formulate the claim involved here.  That bunch
language can does not obviate its being a theory
of which plural quantification/reference is a
realization. 


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.