From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed May 31 19:39:33 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 31 May 2006 19:39:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Fld5e-0001GX-Rt for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 31 May 2006 19:39:14 -0700 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.188]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Fld5d-0001GP-BJ for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 31 May 2006 19:39:14 -0700 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id c31so340265nfb for ; Wed, 31 May 2006 19:39:11 -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=STD2yj4ts7q8zh2YBJvXC7cOhzvYvETl4EFiL5CLcxOq26sCy8AasZRlU0aIZHUxaTw7doIBFjW7VR4SWDFeoLTuQesLEj9lqIPMUUKjNOctJ0+votAEHvl4MmstTIlPnflRrqxQt9GOGVF06f8YuzB01vB8sq/72tRjlKDonb0= Received: by 10.49.34.6 with SMTP id m6mr120934nfj; Wed, 31 May 2006 19:39:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.66.255.6 with HTTP; Wed, 31 May 2006 19:39:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 20:39:11 -0600 From: "Maxim Katcharov" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} In-Reply-To: <925d17560605311649w51e71fc5r26c9b71da03e94f3@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> <925d17560605291521s64cb0a2as821eea86d63839b8@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605291805y7f216d65v33b13eb6741ffda6@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605300707y79d20b95nd621ac89c5e17215@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605310741g384f22b1k5b91aba8173006cd@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605311649w51e71fc5r26c9b71da03e94f3@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -1.8 (-) X-archive-position: 11703 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 5/31/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > On 5/31/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > > > On 5/30/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. > > Yes, the predicate "x1 (many things) form x2 (one thing)" relates many > things to one thing. {lo so'i tadni cu se gunma lo pa gunma}. > > "The many students form one group, a group which surrounds the building." > > or: > > "The many students surrround the building." > > Both are valid ways of describing the same situation, either by referring to a > group, formed by the students, such that the single group surrounds the > building, or by referring directly to the students and saying that _they_ > (not some single _it_) surround the building. One way does not invalidate > the other. "They" is some single it. They are *a* surrounder of the building. Does each student surround the building? No. Does each student perform part of the surroundment of the building? No: looking at it this way was demonstrated useless. Do "the students" surround the building? Yes (you say). Does "the students" refer to "each student"? No. "The students" can refer to a mass, or a set - is there anything else? Nothing that has been demonstrated. If "the students" does not refer to each student, then it must refer to a mass of them. (Similarly, we have two types of animals, humans and bears. A person says "I saw an animal". This animal was not a human, so it must have been a bear.) > > > > > 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. > > No, I have nothing at all against seeing students as a mass. I'm perfectly > fine with it, as I said many times already. I am also fine with, and I think > in some circumstances it is more useful, the other view whereby > the mass is not referred to. One view does not preclude the other. > > > > I take that to mean that when saying "the students surround the > > building" you assert that you make no reference to any mass, yes? > > Correct, that's the pluralist take. > > > 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*. > > They can be treated as a mass surrounding the building, yes, but they (the > same "they") are also wearing hats, and they can't be treated as a mass > wearing a hat. Right. You've described why your pluralist view fails: if we're referring to a mass surrounding the building, *we can't say that our referent, the mass, was wearing a hat*. This is my white dog example. You would like to see an exception made for this: if mass X is made up of Y, and we refer to X in one part of the sentence and Y in another - well, X and Y are interchangeable, so it's ok. But it isn't. A mass and the things that make up the mass are not interchangeable. > > > "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. > > I'm not sure what you mean by saying that "the students" could mean > something that is a set. It could not. No individual student is a set and > the students together are not a set either. The students can be _members_ > of a set. The students together could eventually be taken to "be" a mass > or a group, but they can't be taken to be a mathematical set. "20 students" can be a set of 20 students. When we predicate "20 students" as a set, we predicate them "(" individually ")". When "20 students" is a mass composed of 20 students, we predicate them as a mass (though the single mass is predicated individually). > > > > 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. > > "The students" refers to the students themselves. I don't know how better > to describe the students than as "the students". There is no single entity > being referred to under the pluralist interpretation. Ok, a set of students. I'm not talking about some special metaphysical set, it's just that if I have two pencils in my hand, we call that "a set of two pencils". All this is just fine, but you can't predicate "the students surround the building" because each student is not a surrounder of the building. The students are composite parts of "a surrounder of the building". > > > > > 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? > > It is also covered by plural reference. We not only have the two extreme > cases (all together in one group, or each individually by itself), but by > moving the distributivity indication to the predicate (where I think it > belongs) we can also cover intermediate cases like "in groups of three > or four". > > So: > > le vitke cu pamei tolcliva > The guests arrived singly. > > le vitke cu romei tolcliva > The guests arrived "all-ly" (all together). > > le vitke cu remei tolcliva > The guests arrived in pairs. > > You could easily do the first two with your method, but the third one > would be more complicated. pair typeof arrival? No, I see no problem. You'd say it exactly as you said it there: {ro lo vitke cu remei tolcliva} all the guests pair-ishly arrived. > > > > "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. > > The pluralist view is that "the students surrounded the pole" covers > them all. I see. So, in your pluralist view, you could say ... "the students [The students surrounded the pole one at a time.] and [surrounded the pole in groups of three]" right? It's exactly so in my view, you just have to move some things into the proper places: "[individually the students surrounded the pole] and [groups of three students surrounded the pole]" This really brings us back to the building example: "the students surround the building and wear hats" Let's break this up: 13.1 "the students surround the building" 13.2 "the students wear hats" In (1), what is the referent? "A surrounder of the building": "a mass formed of students". In (2), what is the referent? "Wearers of hats": "each student individually". The two referents are not the same. You can't pretend that they're the same for the sake of translating "the students surround the building and wear hats" verbatim into Lojban. > > > They all seem like > > very nice examples of either the students as a mass, or as > > individuals, or groups of students as individuals. > > Including "the students surrounded the pole"? Yes. There is one surrounder of the pole: the composite entity (sometimes known as a "crowd") formed of the students. Not mentioning it does not mean that it does not exist, just as not mentioning "pencil" when you say "a specific arrangement of graphite and wood" does not mean that it's not a pencil. > > But consider for example "the students surrounded the pole for two > hours". Does it say that each of them did it individually for two hours, > that they took turns so that they covered two hours among them, that > they were all sorrounding it for two hours, that they sorrounded it in turns > and in groups for two hours, that...? Doesn't it cover all those > possibilities and more? Not at the same time. If I say "the students surrounded the pole for two hours and wore hats", the referent cannot be "the mass of the students" and then suddenly become "the students (individually)" - not unless you're using a *shortcut* of the language, like the removal of the word "together" in English. Lojban has only shortcuts that can be *expanded* (like loi for lu'olo). This shortcut that you propose cannot be consistently expanded. 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.