From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sat Jun 03 09:20:52 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 03 Jun 2006 09:20:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FmYrZ-0003PV-5A for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sat, 03 Jun 2006 09:20:33 -0700 Received: from web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.121]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FmYrX-0003PM-3N for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 03 Jun 2006 09:20:32 -0700 Received: (qmail 74096 invoked by uid 60001); 3 Jun 2006 16:20:29 -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=vm+xxQOAlZdjaPMGWQevYwRQ9zeS9Ep0kxSLPgzFiTTGsofGgsSE/Bp6RJl4im0wXPYBtdYNGIjc4fwIccD5EdJFnrMRC8y77WAGjr77ZVs9/VNjgB6khbcxHtT0H263+t8Gt7wCe6tMBFGCziAsEWZlm4p0O1xSzBVWQEsBj6w= ; Message-ID: <20060603162029.74094.qmail@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.237.215.142] by web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 03 Jun 2006 09:20:29 PDT Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 09:20:29 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-archive-position: 11713 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 so here is where I have gotten to so far. Since it seems to strike an important point, I jump in here. --- Maxim Katcharov wrote: > On 5/29/06, Jorge Llambías > wrote: > > On 5/28/06, Maxim Katcharov > wrote: > > > > > > What I'd like to know is how you account > for the building being > > > surrounded. What surrounds it? > > > > The students. > > Avoiding the word "mass"/"crowd" when you say > "the students" does not > mean that "the students" does not refer to a > group of students. It > does. The point is that there is no necessary connection between using (or not) expressions like "group, mass, crowd" etc. and there being such separate things as groups, masses and crowds over and above their members. You can have only inidviduals, only bunches (to use my favorite word in a restricted sense) or both. The language can be exactly the same in all cases. So you cannot say, on the basis of the language, that there are (or are not) such things as bunches. Conversely, if you are committed to there being bunches (or not) -- for whatever reason (but note that others are not obligated to find your reasons compelling) -- you cannot say that the language has to be such and such a way. Lojban grew up in a certain climate of Logic, one which was either ignorant of or chose to ignore ways of dealing with plurality other than by C-sets. But people who worked with Lojban (including the creators and before them the creator of Loglan) were always aware that this approach was ultimately unsatisfactory (if the use of sets were restricted -- as it was -- to the usual set--theoretical devices). What plural reference has done is call attention to another system of Logic, going back to the 1930s, which offers a different way of dealing with the problems, one that corresponds better with the original intuitions for which sets (and, even more obscurely, masses) were formerly the best known. To be sure, plural reference gives one interpretation to this logic, the original propounders gave another, but they work equally well. The move makes very little change in Lojban: making all the references to sets and masses uniform references to pluralities / bunches and the need -- which was present already -- to find a way of indicating the mode of predication outside of the gadri (and some closely related forms). This need was present already because there are places where either mode might be present but a gadri cannot be used to indicate which is used, chiefly within sumti expressions themselves: "those who surrounded the bulding" has the same structure as "those who wore green hats" and no gadri can be brought in to distinguish the different cases. We could, of course, use the {lo / loi} distinction here, but then we need another device to describe the relation of this sumti to its main predicate. And so on. > > > > > Each student does *not* surround it. > > > > Correct. > > > > > What surrounds it is that "mass" of > students. > > > > That's one way of doing it, yes, and a valid > way. That's the singularist way. > > Another valid way is to use plural reference: > "the students" is not taken > > to refer to a single thing, but rather to > many things at the same time. > > It is not taken to have one referent but > many. > > What are you talking about when you say "the > students"? You don't mean: > > 1) each student individually > 2) that quantity of students together > > so what is it that you mean? Show me how and > what "the students" > refers to. If it does not refer to (1), then > your argument falls prey > to my white dog example. I can expound on this > concept of a mass, with > examples etc. Same goes for the concept of > "each student". I doubt > that you'll be left anything to explain your > position with once you > start explaining. The pluralist view relies on > not looking too deeply > at what "the students" means, because once you > do you see that it's > either (1) or (2). This position assumes that reference is a functionfrom one referring espression to one object. There is no necessity to this restriction. Logic just as well if reference is merely a relation, between one referring expression and several objects. Nothing significant changes logically -- all the old rules apply, the theorems are unchanged and so on. Personally, I find it hard to think this way for long stretches, but that is just old, well-engrained, habits. I bridge the gap by thinking in terms of bunches. but is just my thinking; it says nothing about what there really is. And the locutions of the logic langauge are the same whichever way I think. The goal here is to bring Lojban -- the logical language in just this sense -- into line with the logic language. It turns out this takes very little; at most adding devices for indication mode of predication, which, as noted, were needed anyhow, at least occasionally. > Additionally, I don't think that Lojban uses > this mistaken concept of > "plural predication": it seems that the book > that describes it has not > been published yet, and so Lojban predates it > by about 20 years. But the logic (though not necessarily the interpretation) predates even Loglan by at least 20 years. And the pluralist interpretation is present (though somewhat obscured) in Quine's interpretation of Goodman & Leonard's dissertation. It sometimes takes a while to realize what you have and, in Lojban's case, to see that something relieves felt discomforts (which were often acknowledged and commented on). > > > > > It's a type of thing > > > that can be clearly recognized - we even > have names for it: crowd, > > > mob, swarm. We have all sorts of expressions that look like they refer to things. In many cases, we know that they do not, but we use them anyhow. It is not clear that these are not more cases of the same sort. > > Indeed, those are useful concepts and we have > several words to cover > > them: gunma, girzu, bende, etc. > > > > > You seem to have a belief that you can say > that each student surrounds > > > the building, but only when seen in the > company of other students. > > > > No, I have no such belief. > > Then what surrounds the building? Please give > an explanation, > hopefully a detailed one, as opposed to a vague > 2-word answer. There is nothing vague about "the students." What could be more precise and still true (given a nominalist metaphysics, say -- but that is not even necessary). > > > And > > > aha! You don't have to introduce some sort > of strange and > > > other-worldly entity that clearly doesn't > belong. How efficient! > > > > I don't think encompassing entities are > other-worldly at all, they are > > ordinary and useful concepts. But in some > cases using plural reference > > is more convenient. The group of students is, in any case, a real, concrete, this-worldly, physical, and so on as the students. > > > > In my view {re loi ci nanmu} means the > same as {re lo ci nanmu}, because > > > > the non-distributivity introduced by > {loi} is then cancelled by the > > > > distributivity > > > > of the outer {re}. You'd have to say {loi > re lo ci nanmu} to get a > > > > non-distributive > > > > "two of three". This is a point of controversy. I don't think it has been argued out fully. I admit to being on a different side at the moment, namely that {re loi ci nanmu} is still a {loi} (assuming that {loi} is a mark of collective predication). I have to admit also that the arguments on xorxes side have a lot going for them. As i say, this needs to be argued out (but I think that can wait until we decide whether to keep {loi} in its present role, since a decsion there could moot this issue). > > > This doesn't strike you as unnecessarily > complex? > > > > No, I think treating outer quantifiers > uniformly is the simplest option. > > That way, when you say for example {ci ko'a} > you don't have to keep > > track of whether {ko'a} had been assigned > with a non-distributivity marker > > or not. You just need to remember what its > referents are. > > > > > > But it is still useful to have a neutral > form > > > > of the sumti, so that you can combine > distributive and non-distributive > > > > predication without having to replicate > the sumti. > > > > > > Use {lu'o} (or whatever) after a {gi'e} in > the same transient manner > > > in which English occasionally uses > "together". There are many other > > > solutions. Quite aside from the other points, this suggestion is not without merit, since we need some such temporary mode indicators (I suppose "temporary" is redundant, since modes are only for one place on one predicate at a time). Whether to continue attaching these markers to the sumti rather than the predicate -- or somewhere in between, like "individually" and "together" in English is also an issue. > > {lu'o} belongs in selma'o LAhE. Its syntax > consists of changing a sumti > > into another sumti. It can't be used after > {gi'e}. > > I know this. Because it seems that {lu'o} is > rudundant, I'm throwing > out the idea that it might serve to discard the > word, and then give it > a new definition. > > > > > > I think it deserves mention that I don't > see it as a "neutral form" at > > > all, since I don't think that such a thing > exists, aside from as an > > > ambiguous structure in your version of > Lojban. > > > > Consider this sentence: "The three men lifted > the piano". > > > > We can ask for more precision in many > different ways: > > > > (1) When did they do it, yesterday or last > month? > > > > (2) How many times did they do it, once or > seven times? > > > > (3) Where did they do it, inside the house or > outside? > > > > (4) How did they do it, with their bare hands > or with the help of a crane? > > > > (5) How did they do it, quickly or slowly? > > > > (6) How did they do it, together or > individually? > > > > The precision obtained from answering (6) is > no more special than the > > precision obtained from answering any of the > other questions. Well, 6 does seem to me to be more important than the others, since it ties in with logical/grammatical features in a way that the others do not. The fact that it is shown by a similar form in English is perhaps misleading; in Lojban I would hope it was indicated by a cmavo and the others not. That does not mean that I don't think it should be possible to say something without specifying which of these modes is involved: it may be obvious or we may not know or it may be inconvenient or ... . > > That sounds very nice, but no, it's quite > different. 1 through 5 are > all questions regarding the relationship - > where did the act occur, by > what means did it occur, etc. 6 is a question > regarding the sumti - > are we treating these men as a mass/plural, or > individually? So let's > rephrase: This is one interpretation of the distinction, but not the only one and not one that the logic forces on us. It is just a picture in your head, not a reality in the world. Though the whole event may be a reality, your interpretion of it is only yours. > (3) Which piano did they lift, the one that was > inside the house or outside? > > Now, when we get a response to that question, > the referent doesn't > change in the same way that "together or > individually" would change > it. Take our student example: > > {[L_ muno tadni] cu [dasni lo mapku] gi'e > [sruri === message truncated === <> Yes this is a different case, but this way of describing the difference -- rather than in termso of collective or distributive predication on several individuals, say -- is not forced by anything other than your habits. <> IF you accept the analogy. BUT there is no compulsion to do so. YOU do, but that is your habit. Xorxes does not and that is either his habit or his choice. The logic 9and the language) works the same either way. <> Who denies this? Are you strawmanning xorxes' position? I am not sure whether his actual position can be attacked along some lines like this, but this is simply not a relevant thing to say. <> Of course, xorxes is not doing this, since he denies (quite legitmately) that he is referring to the mass composed of X at all. 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.