From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed May 31 14:30:59 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 31 May 2006 14:31:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FlYH2-00054l-Pe for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 31 May 2006 14:30:40 -0700 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.190]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FlYH1-00054d-45 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 31 May 2006 14:30:40 -0700 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id m18so235094nfc for ; Wed, 31 May 2006 14:30:37 -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=PfZSS14MpJhWWMNomGA47j/ceWvPguxtqsM6nmpWBfvpdLwrLoKSzhmEqLsxxHfC5Msg5+fDelFzPInjdyi8zUZwGkHsF6DXb5BGQUgjdtQWFbJNRHSa8KsuBhRwKSGOUteNXhGSMg0NotPpW6p84NAj9DHQDA8SfG+Lc+u9zRY= Received: by 10.49.56.9 with SMTP id i9mr913434nfk; Wed, 31 May 2006 14:30:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.66.255.6 with HTTP; Wed, 31 May 2006 14:30:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 15:30:36 -0600 From: "Maxim Katcharov" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} In-Reply-To: <925d17560605310741g384f22b1k5b91aba8173006cd@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> <925d17560605291351i15f1def0ocb0e163cb7a6143c@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605291521s64cb0a2as821eea86d63839b8@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605291805y7f216d65v33b13eb6741ffda6@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605300707y79d20b95nd621ac89c5e17215@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605310741g384f22b1k5b91aba8173006cd@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -1.8 (-) X-archive-position: 11700 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 5/31/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 5/30/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > > > > (7.1) 50 students stand on those marks. Together (3b), the > > > > students surround the building. > > > > (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? > > In 7.1, there is a time x, such that at time x the students are surrounding > the building. In 7.2 and 7.3 there is no time x, such that at time x the > students are surrounding the building. I doubt that any speaker of English > would say, in the situations described in 7.2 or 7.3, "the students surround > the building". No, it's not time, it's something else. (6) One child reads the first half of a book, pauses to look up, and completes the reading. (7) One child reads the first half of a book, hands the book over to another, and the other completes the reading. (8) Two children sit beside each other in front of a book. They open the book in two places, one starts reading from the start, the other from the middle (they have their heads inclined and some pages are held aloft). They complete each of their parts. The difference between (1) and (2/3/5/7/8) is that (1) is percieved to be a part of the same "surrounder of the building" (the same mass), while (2) and (3) are not. Likewise, in (6) the one child is a "reader of the book", but in (7) and (8) the children are not parts of the same "reader of the book". > > > > > (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? > > Exactly. > > > > 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. > > Indeed, that's what the predicate claims. I hope that you read my sentence well before responding. > > > 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. > > I certainly would, yes. But I would never say "May I borrow those molecules, > please, I need to jot something down", and I don't think anyone would. The It doesn't matter if you would treat it as such in this situation. What matters is that it /is/. > scientific question "what does a pencil consist of?" is fairly irrelevant to the > linguistic question "how does one refer to a pencil?". > > > 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". > > With some effort, yes. With considerable effort. An easier thing to do would be to consider graphite and wood arranged pencil-wise. > > > 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. > > If you are trying to prove that aggregates have linguistic existence, you > don't have to convince me, I'm on your side. I have no ontological problem > with the existence of groups as groups, as I said from the start. > > > 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. > > That is a perfectly fine way of looking at it, and I have never disputed > that. What I have disputed is your claim that it is the *only* possible > or sensible way of looking at it. You seem to have something against seeing the students as a mass, otherwise you wouldn't be arguing for a position that doesn't "mention" mass. > > > The pluralist view would like one to believe that there's something > > between mass and set. > > Not between them, but prior to both. The pluralist view says that you can > refer to the students without making any reference to sets, masses or any > other encompassing entity. I take that to mean that when saying "the students surround the building" you assert that you make no reference to any mass, yes? You do not go around waving a red banner stating "composite entity!", but they form a composite entity regardless: They must be arranged in a certain way whereby they form a surrounder of the building. the mass is "a surrounder of the building". And it is treated *as a mass*. > > > "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. > > "The students" is a referring expression, not a pedication. Something "The students" could mean either something that /is/ a set (individually), or /is/ a mass. In "the students surround the building", it is predicated as a mass. > else is predicated of its referents. You don't need to know what the > predicate will be in order to identify the referents of "the students". Tell me then, does "the students" refer to a composite entity composed of students, or a group/set of students? If neither, please describe what is referenced. > > > > 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? > > It does not refer to one thing, neither a set nor a mass nor any other > encompassing entity. It refers to many things (to many people in this case). "Many things" /is/, when you get down to using it, either a mass or a set. Which is it? Or is it something new? All you're telling me by answering ambiguously is that your reference is ambiguous. Like "animal" in my white dog example. > > > 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? > > I think "together" suggests "in a single group". > > The guests arrived together. (They all arrived at the same time.) > The guests arrived in groups. (None arrived alone.) Then the "groups" variant is beside the point of our discussion, no? > > > > 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. > > I never argued that they can't be referred to as a mass or that they aren't > a mass. Only that they need not be so referred, you need not refer to the > mass to say something non-distributive about them. If they /are/ a mass, then you can't refer to them as such in one part of the sentence, and then refer to them otherwise in another. Yes, "the animal" can /potentially/ refer to either the dog or the cat, but it /actually/ refers to one of them, and not both at the same time. > > > > 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". > > Well, maybe you mean you do. Personally, I don't. What do you think then? > > > 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. > > "The students surrounded the pole" covers any of these situations: > > The students surrounded the pole one at a time. individually. > The students surrounded the pole in groups of three. individually, groups of three students surrounded the pole, sure. ... > The students surrounded the pole five times each, in varying groups of four. > The students surrounded the pole taking turns for five minutes. > The students surrounded the pole for two hours. > The students surrounded the pole first together and then in pairs. > etc. > etc. > > They are all covered by "the students surrounded the pole". > Ok, now tell me which one is the pluralist view. They all seem like very nice examples of either the students as a mass, or as individuals, or groups of students as individuals. 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.