From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue May 30 16:28:25 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 30 May 2006 16:28:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FlDd8-0004zJ-Ls for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 30 May 2006 16:28:06 -0700 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FlDd5-0004z9-G8 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 30 May 2006 16:28:06 -0700 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id x4so47151nfb for ; Tue, 30 May 2006 16:28:01 -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=N9MIGY7bqbIVvSxavMKTcLr69kZeiqlsIOyFlUoopPpdYfS3INEpMSjnSet6vSbGaTcfs8tT4Ikvi+u4HlmXrmDMygLyHCBkaNtiDe8Gsk44II4ZO7/Chp00XdZLmQWnLAjv7hjbVKetZL+mg0kG72jMtNDqC58LsVcuzwyne8A= Received: by 10.48.210.7 with SMTP id i7mr167583nfg; Tue, 30 May 2006 16:28:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.66.255.6 with HTTP; Tue, 30 May 2006 16:28:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 17:28:01 -0600 From: "Maxim Katcharov" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} In-Reply-To: <925d17560605300707y79d20b95nd621ac89c5e17215@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> <925d17560605290655h478dc1c5rbf85df7e0e7312cf@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605291351i15f1def0ocb0e163cb7a6143c@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605291521s64cb0a2as821eea86d63839b8@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605291805y7f216d65v33b13eb6741ffda6@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605300707y79d20b95nd621ac89c5e17215@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -1.8 (-) X-archive-position: 11698 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 5/30/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 5/30/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > > > This has to do with grammatical aspects. For example, I might start > > reading a book, pause halfway through, and then resume and complete > > reading the book. Now, if you were to start reading the book, pause, > > hand it over to me, and I resumed and completed reading it, we would > > say that we read the book "together (3b)". > > Only if we read it to each other, right? If I read half the book to myself, > then you come into the room and I leave, and you read the second > part of the book, we probably wouldn't say "we read the book together". I'm glad you think so. > > > (7.2) 25 students stand on 25 marks, leave, and then another 25 to > > stand on the other marks. Together (3b), the students surround the > > building. > > > > (7.3) Two students stands on 25 marks for 10 seconds per mark. > > Together (3b), the students surround the building. > > > > There's clearly something amiss with (7.2) and (7.3). > > Right, in those cases at no point in time would the building be > surrounded by students. In what ways are those cases different from the first? > > > (7.5) A piece of graphite exists, and a hollow piece of wood exists. > > Together (3b), they are a pencil. > > It is perfectly sensible to say "a piece of graphite and a graphite tube > constitute a pencil together", but in order for them to constitute a pencil > together it is not enough that each of them exists, they must also be > arranged in a certain way. Similarly for the students around the building, Arranged in a certain way? So as to form a pencil, you mean? > it is not enough that they occupy some space for them to surround the > building, they must occupy the space at the same time for the > surrounding to take place. They must be arranged in a certain way whereby they form a surrounder of the building. > > > What is a composite entity, or "mass"? It is something whereby all its > > component parts complete a piece of the pie (if you will). I am a > > human; together (3b) my heart, lungs, bones, brain, consciousness, > > [etc.] complete parts of "human". None does the job on its own, but > > the job is completed (a composite entity exists) through their > > combined efforts. > > > > (As I've noted before, most if not all things are masses/composites.) > > Yes and no. A human body can be thought of as a composite of > organs, but we (or at least I) don't normally think of it that way, I think It's not my point that it matters what someone thinks at some point in time. I may as well be stating that all dogs are animals. I don't think of {rokci} when I say {braro'i}. But boulders are rocks, dogs are animals, and human bodies (sans implications of consciousness) are masses of human organs. I assume that while you don't have to specify in your mind that a pencil is a mass of molecules, you nevertheless would acknowledge that it is, factually, a mass of molecules, or at the very very least a mass of some graphite and wood. This applies in the opposite direction. If you wanted to think of molecules arranged pen-wise (assuming your mind was up to the task), you could do that without having to think of the concept of "pen". However, not having to think of "pen" does not mean that those molecules ("arranged pen-wise") aren't a pen, just as not having to think of "body" does not mean that those organs ("arranged body-wise") aren't a body. This is true even if you don't have a word for pen or body. You need not think of "mass" nor "group" when you think "the students". However, "the students" /is/ a mass. The students are "arranged surrounder-of-the-building-wise". The students are a surrounder of the building. The pluralist view would like one to believe that there's something between mass and set. "The students" is predicated like a mass ("a surrounder of the building"), but because the speaker is not thinking of it as a mass, it must be some sort of set (?) that in some special way ("plurally") surrounds the building. That's not the case. > of it as one thing. I would never say "my organs are lying on this bed" > when I mean that my body is. Not even "my organs are lying on the > bed together". I suspect you would not argue for {lei mi rango cu vreta > le vi ckana} either. A body is not just a mass of organs. It is. It's just that you're not currently thinking of it as a mass of organs, just as when you say "dog" you aren't thinking of it as an animal. > > > > Where did you find a copy of the book? > > > > http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ISBN=0199278148 > > > > states that the release date is July. Is it available elsewhere? > > The whole thing (at least in draft form) used to be online a couple of > years ago, when we were discussing this on the BPFK forum. > Unfortunate that the second chapter is no longer available. > > Upon further reading, > > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plural-quant/ > > and many other sources of "plural quantification/predication" seem to > > talk of the sort of plural quantification that we have in Lojban - > > that is, inner/outer quantifiers. > > Outer quantifiers, as I understand them, are always singular > (i.e. distributive) quantification. Lojban doesn't strictly have plural > quantifiers, only plural reference. > > >The "singularist viewpoint" that > > they target seems to be the requirement of first order logic to split > > something like "the apple and orange were on the table" into two > > sentences, and the ensuing inability to cope with reciprocality. I > > could be wrong, since I didn't read it in sufficient detail, but this > > sort of "singularism" seems to have little to do with the > > "singularism" that you identify my viewpoint as supporting. I would be > > grateful if you could direct me to some material (perhaps a > > subsection) that discusses your "singularism" specifically. > > The key difference between singular and plural quantification is this: > > In singular quantification, variables can only take one value at a time. > (Each student at a time, or the mass of students as a single entity, > for example) > > In plural quantification, variables can take more than one value at once. > (All the students at once, for example.) > > I think the first paragraph of the wikipedia article describes it reasonably > well. Well, the first paragraph (and your descriptions here) do little to explain the difference between this and Lojbanic plural predication (i.e. {lo *su'o* prenu}). I'll address the explanation that you offered prior: > I can only repeat what I have already said: "The students" refers to all > the students in question, namely to Ann, Bob, Charles, Diana, ... and Zoe. Ok, so a set? A mass? Something else? > We can predicate things about them in many different ways. We can say > that they do things together, we can say that they do things individually, we > can say that they do things in groups. In all cases, we are predicating things What is the distinction between doing things together and doing things in groups? > about the same students, i.e. about Ann, Bob, Charles, Diana, ... and Zoe. > Some things, like wearing hats, they do individually. je'e, A wore a hat; B wore a hat; ... > Other things, like surrounding the building, they do together. je'e, this is the mass of students example discussed above that you've argued isn't a mass. > Some things, like holding hands, they do in pairs, > some things, like talking to one another, they do in groups > of three or four. But it is always the same students that do all these things. This isn't "predicating things about them in different ways", this is making entirely different predications. "Do things in groups" equates to "each one (some?) of the group talked to 3-4 of the group". We're not actually saying that there were groups of students that "talked" (together) - just reciprocally. I don't see what relevance this has to our discussion. That of the group, some students talk to 3-4 other students of the same group doesn't seem to demonstrate anything regarding masses, individuals, or "plurals". > Some things it is not even clear or important whether we consider they do > them together or individually. If I say "I see the students", I can > think of it as > saying that I see each of them or that I see them all together, it makes little > difference. It makes little difference which one you choose, but you do choose one of them. You either think (and hence say) "I see the crowd", or you think "I see each of the people". You tell me that "the students surround the building" is different from "the students talked in groups" (clearly so). After giving these seemingly random examples of predications that are different to you, you ask me what is unclear. What is unclear is how "the students (plurally) surround the pole" differs from "the students (individually) surround the pole" and "together the students surround the pole". Please provide explanations (or examples) that illustrate /that/, in the same way that my crude explanations of "as a mass" and "individually" indicated differences between those two. 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.