From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Dec 15 12:49:40 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 15 Dec 2005 12:49:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1En02V-0005qj-F0 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 12:49:23 -0800 Received: from web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.118]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.54) id 1En02U-0005qc-Fo for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 12:49:23 -0800 Received: (qmail 57961 invoked by uid 60001); 15 Dec 2005 20:49:21 -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=V8yHAv9yLwGh7ouKZC7NSXki+34kUpjfp6Xk9VNmtmnMpMGNikyUa0SNfCmA1PaszSoPg7VzAL7eigU0kbgRT7ahXb163nSJ47/mCYxeD+Wx78tZGf10xNih5EhKOvyfX9jweSL9RAP1quGsK7k3pli2vquojd8tXdF7xkJHuX4= ; Message-ID: <20051215204921.57958.qmail@web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.230.168.167] by web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 12:49:21 PST Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 12:49:21 -0800 (PST) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: A Proposed Explanation of {gunma} To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <20051215194359.33300.qmail@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.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: 10902 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 --- John E Clifford wrote: > --- Jorge Llambías > wrote: > > > On 12/15/05, John E Clifford > > 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. > > Looking over that chapter again, I note that McKay is doing a very different thing there. He is arguing that plural quantification/reference cannot be reduced to any singularist version and that it does not require a singularist underpinning of any sort. All of which I agree with; I am only saying that there are singularist systems that are formally indistinguishable from plural reference/quantification. After all, bunch theory does not *say* there is a bunch that so and so, it just says that something is so and so, leaving it open what that something is/are: aF & bF & cF => [Ed]d-F regardless. Put another way, McKay uses "plurality" and "plurals" in ways that are to the naked eye not different from the way a singularist uses "set" or "fusion" and this is even more true in the formalism. 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.