From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sun Jun 04 10:19:08 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 04 Jun 2006 10:19:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FmwFT-0001XS-6i for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sun, 04 Jun 2006 10:18:47 -0700 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.181]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FmwFP-0001XK-Ep for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 04 Jun 2006 10:18:47 -0700 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id w49so994302pyg for ; Sun, 04 Jun 2006 10:18:42 -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=F9WhVHZCXsY5FdIZilQ2Q/OP8SGQhZylEMrkOIWrI7P08QODe1jldgyUg8zWXtfgJD8Ls0rePtfRDrIcW5oFMqmWzV/fuCg1lhTi01i4TDHEbFUVyE47bxadg3EwYQpcThY/5Zwg5XRRT9aC8uOf8DRYLWzE4L9Q7VuEM7p5EmI= Received: by 10.35.111.7 with SMTP id o7mr5124530pym; Sun, 04 Jun 2006 10:18:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.37.4 with HTTP; Sun, 4 Jun 2006 10:18:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 11:18:41 -0600 From: "Maxim Katcharov" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} In-Reply-To: <925d17560606040609q49d2bf69k342f69bb9103fa3@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: <20060603162029.74094.qmail@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <925d17560606031507u3caf439fof06571b7b02e3e6d@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560606031815w3179c445tc9b750f97931f114@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560606031924x522d0655kb30e8441b87adda9@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560606040609q49d2bf69k342f69bb9103fa3@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-archive-position: 11725 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 6/4/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 6/3/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > So each predicate is marked for distributivity/non-distributivity > > (bunch-indiv/bunch-together)? > > Each of a predicate's argument places _can_ be marked for it. It is > not always marked, in the same way that tense is not always marked. > It wouldn't get marked in the same way as tense. Tense marks the entire bridi, or each sumti, and not the predicate place. It also uses very specific words for it, as opposed to the trick that you want to use with the outer quantifier (which, by the way, disallows "only 10 of the group surrounded the building and wore hats"). Regardless, this isn't the explanation that I've been repeatedly asking for: Bunch, individually: We are not treating Alice this way, so this does not apply. (If this were the hat example: Alice, herself, wears one+ of the bunch of hats implied by the blank inner of {lo mapku}) Bunch, together (but not in the sense of mass or group): Alice's relationship to the surrounding of the building is ??? What is the difference between the latter two relationships? For example, if it is indeed similar to tense, I'll offer some rough example explanations that show the differences between pu/ca/ba when they are used within the sumti: {pu}: an entity that at some point in the past was running, but may or may not be running now or in the future. {ca}: an entity that is running now. {ba}: an entity that at some point in the future will run, but my or may not be running now or have run in the past. The difference between the three is that {pu} will not refer to any entity that was /not/ running in the past, ca will not refer to an entity that is not runnig now, and ba will not refer to an entity that is not running in the future. This means that in {lo ca tadni cu sruri lo dinju}, Alice is definitely currently a student, if she is to be a referent of {lo ca tadni}. > > What is {lo tadni cu bebna} marked for? > > It isn't marked, but it could be marked for distributivity. Ok, what is the difference between the two markings of distributivity, especially from the perspective of Alice's relationship to the foolishness? > > > How about {lo tadni cu sruri > > lo skori}? What if they're playing tug-of-war? What if they're > > standing around a rope looking up at the person climbing it? What if > > several paths surround the building, and we're talking of them? > > Indeed there are many situations that could be described by that > sentence. What if it's happening now? What if it happened two weeks > ago? etc. etc. Right. > > > No, "surrounded the building" is not inherently collective, and > > neither is any other selbri or sumti-slot. > > Right. And "sumti-slot" is the right thing to say, because it is the > slot that should logically get the mark, not what fills the slot. No other part of language works this way, and with good reason. But this is putting the cart before the horse. > > {dasni} is not inherently distributive either. For example in "the students > wore the hats", we would not normally want full distributivity for both > arguments, which would give "each of the students wears each of the > hats", we only want "respective" distributivity: "the students wore their > respective hats", "each student wore their own hat". > > It's interesting to note that while Lojban has gadri corresponding to the > {joi}-connective, it has no gadri corresponding to the {fa'u}-connective, so > to get the "respectively" reading fully explicited you have to duplicate > the sentence: > > ro le tadni cu dasni pa le mapku ije ro re mapku cu se dasni pa le tadni ro ri mapku, yes. > > Of course {le tadni cu dasni le mapku} will be clear enough in most contexts, > because we know that hats are normally worn by one person only (at > a given time) and that a person normally wears just one hat, but that comes > from our general knowledge of how the world is, not from what the sentence > states. > > > > There is no difference in the referring expression. The difference is in > > > the predicate. > > > > Predicates don't have default distributivity/non-distributivity. > > I agree. > I am, of course, referring to your"predicates", and not my"predicates". My predicates don't need to be marked, because they simply don't behave in this (strange) way. 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.