From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sat May 27 14:24:53 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 27 May 2006 14:24:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fk6Gx-0000kV-Fr for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sat, 27 May 2006 14:24:35 -0700 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.174]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fk6Gs-0000kK-VR for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 27 May 2006 14:24:35 -0700 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id j40so495399ugd for ; Sat, 27 May 2006 14:24:29 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=RpcRpuv6yZC4dz6N1k8L6eLGmYm76UeN7HeqddP1ziNCM90lCx45smoSmAX7xIXMW9n5K5aXqLZZbHNTW+qrKCfKZZaGgQ7qbPK7tEzPRhDQUyCiz957Q4HJMBwzCqt52KP7/n8addkyouulv5pD2CETEsLFRj/lZEII8ioNUk4= Received: by 10.67.96.14 with SMTP id y14mr625343ugl; Sat, 27 May 2006 14:24:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.66.255.6 with HTTP; Sat, 27 May 2006 14:24:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 15:24:28 -0600 From: "Maxim Katcharov" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} In-Reply-To: <925d17560605270712l6aa155efic0a7482d4ee0ba43@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline References: <925d17560605160731j379ecfdbo42862a88433e112c@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605231539l2bdbcf8bqe44d242fa371eed7@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605240608t20353b28gd96dea490efc8a71@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605250957g29c9e972l4543c11102fc891f@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605260732u5039a616jf8c220a7a485a12a@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605270712l6aa155efic0a7482d4ee0ba43@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11679 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: maxim.katcharov@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On 5/27/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 5/26/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > On 5/26/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > > > > > That's why I don't say that {loi so'i broda} refers to a mass. I only > > > say that it refers to many brodas. To them directly, not to an > > > additional thing on top which contains them. There are some advantages > > > to doing this, i.e. not bringing in unnecessary entities. > > > > I would say that it does refer to a mass, namely, the mass composed of > > brodas. The brodas are referred to in the same way that "the store" is > > in "the hats such that were in the store" - it's not the main > > referent, but a referent regardless. The main referent of a loi is the > > mass itself. I don't understand your comment regarding unnecessary > > entities, since the mass-entity is the most critical aspect. > > That's the "singularist" view, the one McKay argues against in the > link I posted. Unfortunately, it appears that only the first chapter is > available online now, his second chapter, "Against Singularism", had > a more complete argument. The singularist view maintains that you > can only make a predication about single things, and the only way to > predicate something about many things is to either say that the same > predication applies to each one, or to group them all into a new > encompassing thing and make a predication about this single thing. Yes. That's how it is. > The non-singularist view holds that you can make a predication about > several things without having to distribute it or having to introduce > an encompassing single entity. How exactly is this sensible? X is a surrounder of the building, but only when you look at it as her being in the company of A..W? X the groupmate surrounds the building, but X does not? No, X the groupmate does not surround the building. A..X, together/as a group/mass surround the building. A quote (of supposedly McKay) that I found: The fact that some individuals are surrounding a building does not automatically imply that some single individual (of any kind) surrounds the building. Yes, it does imply that. In this case, the mass of students is that entity. Just because a mass does not take on a distinct physical shape does not mean it's not there. Let's say that 10 soldiers then surrounded the students (together, and not in the sense that these 10 soldiers each hugged a student). We have a way to say this: "the squad surrounded the students". Yes, we do explicitly treat groups as entities. You can't simply say "well, look! No definite entity is mentioned explicitly, and I won't bother to see if an implicit entity exists. After all, it's ridiculous to think that some things seen together could just 'magically' be seen as a new entity, right? ...and therefore no entity exists". If I had the second chapter, then we would be able to give more consideration to the subject. > > > > (Notice that I am not saying that you can never talk about > > > masses/groups/sets/etc., or that it is never useful to do so. You certainly > > > can, as in for example {lo gunma be lo prenu}, "a group of people". What > > > I don't do is use {loi} to intoduce a new entity.) > > > > What do you mean by 'introduce a new entity'? > > I mean that I can say something about several people without having > to make reference to another entity that has them as members. It's not bad to introduce a new entity when it's that entity that does the act. This makes it almost sound like you're introducing any random entity (say, a gorilla or something) to explain something away - no, the entity is the entities that are already quite familiar treated as a mass. > > > > (1) lo gunma be lo ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno > > > A group of three men carry the piano. > > > > > > (2) loi ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno > > > Three men carry the piano. > > > > > > The difference I see between (1) and (2) is that in (1) there is a reference > > > to a new entity, a group, that has three members, whereas in (2) there > > > is no reference to any such entity, there is only reference to three men, > > > which carry the piano together. > > > > The entity is implicit. (2) expands to (1). The word {srana} (it was > > srana, wasn't it?) is not said every time we use {pe}, but it's still > > there. > > That's the singularist view of {loi}, yes. We'll get nowhere if all we do is give names for what the other is saying. How does (2) /not/ expand to (1)? > > I'd like to emphasize the difference between "group", {girzu}, and > > "aggregate", {gunma}. Many (all?) things are aggregates, relatively > > few things are groups. "Atom" would be {nargunma}, "that which is not > > composed of any other things" (of course, we've found that atoms in > > physics /are/ composed of other things, and so you would not call them > > this). > > Yes, I'm not disputing that various distinctions can be made between > different types of encompassing entities. All I'm saying is that the view that > does not introduce any encompassing entity is, for me at least, the most > useful. That way I can say: > > le mu no tadni cu dasni lo mapku gi'e sruri le dinju > "The fifty students wore hats and surrrounded the building." > > without claiming that there was any single entity that both wore a hat > and surrounded the building. This is a somewhat absurd misrepresentation (or misunderstanding) of my position. I've never said that this entity (the mass of students) would wear a single hat; this is clearly and absolutely wrong. But this entity /would/ surround the building. We say two things: "50 things wear hats", "1 thing surrounds the building". X = set of 50 students "the fifty students wore hats..." [X] each wore hats "...and, together, surrounded the building" [singular entity composed of [X]] surrounded the building > > When {su'o} is used, you don't mean some special number called "some". > > You mean that the listener should make a best guess as to what the > > number could be (maybe it's five, maybe it's all of whatever number is > > the inner). > > I think it would be more correct to say that {su'o} is a special quantifier > (if not strictly a number) called "some". For example, in: > > naku su'o prenu cu klama > It is not the case that at least some person came. > > you don't want the listener to make any best guess for {su'o}. Any number > you replace {su'o} with will make a claim different from the one intended. How are the following different: naku su'o lo prenu cu klama naku lo prenu cu klama > > This is exactly the behaviour of the blank outer. If you > > want to say {pa}, but decide to leave it vague, then the blank or > > {su'o} are equally suited for your purposes. > > Not really. This isn't an argument, it's just contradiction. In what way are they different? > > > I agree that an implicit {su'o} emphasizes "some, probably not all > > (are X)", which is probably not the intent. Aside from emphasis, there > > is nothing different between the blank outer and {su'o}. They're both > > vague in the exact same way. > > That's one of the differences, but in some cases introducing a {su'o} > changes the claim completely. For example: > > lo tadni pu sruri le dinju > "Students surrrounded the building." > > su'o lo tadni pu sruri le dinju > "At least one student surrounded the building." How are these claims different, aside from the first English one meaning "at least 2" because of the plural form? > Or: > > lo cribe pu citka ro le mi jbari > "Bears ate all my berries." > > su'o lo cribe pu citka ro le mi jbari > "At least one bear ate all my berries." Again, how are these different? > > > > > Do you simply "not commit > > > > to any interpretation"? If one meant {no} as the outer, would it be > > > > acceptable to use the blank? > > > > > > No, one would have to use {no}. Similarly if one meant {ro}, or {su'o}, > > > or {re}, etc. one would have to use them. > > > > ...unless one wanted to be ambiguous. Let's say that I had {no}, or > > {pa} in mind. Would it be ok to leave it blank? > > Probably not. With some very strong context, perhaps: > > A: no ma cu nenri le tanxe > B: lo cribe > > A: No what are in the cage? > B: Bears > > In that case, the single {lo cribe} will probably be understood as > {[no] lo cribe [cu nenri le tanxe]}, but I can't think of any context in which > you could omit the {no} without omitting the predicate at the same time. B isn't a sentence with a 'context', it's an accepted shortcut for saying {no lo ro cribe cu nenri le tanxe} (i.e. {lo cribe} exactly replaces {ma} in {no ma cu nenri le tanxe}) I can't think of any situation/'context' where the blank wouldn't be equivalent "su'o". > A negation is hard to get from context alone. I suspect an outer {pa}, > "exactly one of", would be almost as hard. At most as hard as any other number - which is not that hard. There are plenty of examples where a certain number would be evident. To the man with an injured hand you may say: {ko bevri lo crino li'urta'e} "do carry the green suitcase(s)" and be understood to mean "one green suitcase" even if there are 3 green suitcases there. In situations where there is only 1 green suitcase there, well, let's just say that the number is a lot more evident. > > > > You can't assume that inserting a {su'o} where no outer quatifier has > > > been used will leave the meaning unchanged, no. In some cases you > > > will get a very similar meaning, in other cases a very different one. > > > > How will it be any different? When I say {lo ci cribe...}, I mean > > "some unspecified number of the bears are [...], and the rest are > > not". I find this exactly equivalent to {su'o lo ci cribe...}. > > That's how CLL defines {lo}. Defined like that, they are equivalent, yes. > But when *I* say {lo ci cribe}, I don't mean that. ...which is why I'm asking you how they're any different. As in, how is your{lo ci cribe...} any different from your{su'o lo ci cribe...}. > > > > > > {ro lo mapku} = each hat > > > > > {lo ro mapku} = all hats > > > > > > > > All of what hats? > > > > > > All things that count as hats. > > > > All things that count as hats are All hats (existing now, future, > > past, hypothetically, etc.). Your "all" is very different. Your "all" > > means "all of some relevant/contextually-sensible group". > > No. As I said before "all hats" is contextually sensible, because > what counts as a hat is contextually sensible, but it does not > mean "all contextually sensible hats" because when you mention > "contextually sensible hats" you immediately bring into the picture > hats that are not contextually sensible as well. In other words, context If you and I are talking of Alice and Bob talking about "all hats", my saying that "all hats means all contextually sensible hats" does **not** bring "all other hats" into *Alice and Bob's* conversation. It brings it into *our* conversation. > sensibility is something that you can discuss in the metalanguage, > when discussing what a phrase means, it is not something that you > can incorporate into the phrase without changing its meaning. Luckily, we're not incorporating it into the phrase, rather we're talking about its meaning within the phrase. > > > > > "All of the bears" (in > > > > the zoo), "all of the hats" (in the store). There's a group there. > > > > > > When you make the restriction explicit, yes. > > > > There is no explicit restriction. You said that {lo ro cribe} meant > > "all bears that are in the zoo". > > I hope I never said that. "All bears that are in the zoo" would be something > like {lo ro cribe poi zvati le dalpanka}. Quoting you: " xu do pu viska lo ro cribe ca lo nu do vitke le dalpanka Did you see all bears when you visited the zoo? I don't have any specific bears in mind there, because I don't even know how many bears the zoo has. I do intend to ask about all the bears at the zoo, but all I know about them is that they are all the bears at the zoo. I am not using the description to get at some referents that I have otherwise in mind. There is only the description that generates the referents for me. I am certainly not asking about all bears that exist in the universe. " And as far as I can tell, you're still asserting that {lo ro cribe} could very well mean {lo ro cribe poi zvati le dalpanka}. > > > > > So omitting > > > > the outer means that it is ambiguous? > > > > > > Only in the sense that remaining silent is ambiguous between all > > > the things I could have said but didn't. But that's not what "ambiguity" > > > normally means. > > > > Yes, it is. "Open to more than one interpretation" is the standard > > definition, even in the context of linguistics. > > > > http://www.answers.com/ambiguous > > http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/ambiguous > > > > If you want to say that a certain *word* is ambiguous, you say "ambiguous word". > > In that case, according to you, is every sentence (in any language) ambiguous? > For example "That's an animal" is ambiguous between "that's a cat" and > "that's an elephant", "that's a cat" is ambiguous betwen "that's a white cat" > and "that's a black cat", "that's a black cat" is ambiguous between "that's > a large black cat" and "that's a small black cat", and so on. Construed that > way, it is not very clear what use the concept of ambiguity may have. Cat means cat. However, "remove the cat" is ambiguous if there are two cats (it's ambiguous which cat I mean). "That's a cat" is not ambiguous, unless it's unclear of what I'm pointing to (it's ambiguous what I'm pointing to), or perhaps if I mean 'person who likes jazz' (it's ambiguous which definition of cat I'm using). When I say "that's an animal", I mean that that's an animal. But when you say "either individually or together", there is no superclass there. It's simply an ambiguous statement, in the same way that "cat" having two definitions is ambiguous. Or do you have a better way to refer to your "either together or individually"? 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.