From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Jun 06 10:54:31 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 06 Jun 2006 10:54:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Fnfkq-0004uG-4r for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 10:54:12 -0700 Received: from web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.122]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Fnfko-0004u9-51 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 10:54:11 -0700 Received: (qmail 36258 invoked by uid 60001); 6 Jun 2006 17:54:08 -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=fx8F1xQBZDFxwjE/Ir+gHenoxONME4TXL1hty1sCeBpMkd/XBGRy9gRUFNuNxYVAZwjseRUMLgKDaUTZmovP5yJor+KEA26i1ThQnTXE2FGQ1DFCSUnbYu1JrkJxPmQHjQvj+UpsY7n+3Oz/7JMUFbVnwmyZ8YTXyS0iyEzSv5o= ; Message-ID: <20060606175408.36256.qmail@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.237.215.142] by web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 10:54:08 PDT Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 10:54:08 -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: 11743 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 --- Maxim Katcharov wrote: > On 6/5/06, John E Clifford > wrote: > > > > > > --- Maxim Katcharov > > > wrote: > > > > > On 5/29/06, Jorge Llambías > > > wrote: > > > > On 5/29/06, Maxim Katcharov > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > That's the singularist view, yes. But it > is > > > not the only possible view. > > > > > > Ok, then please show an alternate view. > You've > > > flatly asserted that > > > one exists, yet when I ask you to explain > it, a > > > vague two-word answer > > > ("the students") with no explanation or > > > demonstrative examples is all > > > I get. > > > > On a pluralist view, reference is a relation, > not > > a function, so that a single term may refer > > simultaneously to several things. > > Sure. In my singularist view, I too prefer to > think of it as a > relation. "run(dog, road)" seems silly to me. I don't see what this is illustrating or, perhaps, just what is says about the way reference is treated: function or relation. > The question that I pose > is: what is the nature of the relation between, > say, Alice (one of the > students that surrounds the building) and the > surrounding of the > building? The relation is crystal clear between > Alice and the wearing > of a hat, but the building-surroundment > relation seems to be > vaporizing as xorxes tries to nail it down. I > suspect that this is > because the true nature of this pluralist > relationship is that of a > mass - the relationship is that Alice is part > of a mass/group that > surrounds the building, and that there simply > is no other sensible > interpretation. Well, I suppose that Alice's relation surrounding the building (when she is one of the students surrounding the building)is "participation." I suppose that giving it a name is not going to satisfy you (quite rightly) but if I lay out the formal specifications of the relation, you will just say "Oh, that's just membership in the group." Or if I try to specify it in extension, spelling out how she particpates (standing NEbyN of the building at the same time as others are standing at the other points of the compass, say) you will relate that to being a member of the group as well. To which I can only say "Precisely" -- singularist and pluralist languages are two different ways of stating the same facts. They are completely intertranslatable in a one-one mechanical way. You want a pluralist claim that is not interpretable as a singularist one and there just ain't any. This whole discussion is totally vacuous. > > A sentence > > using this term will be true if those things > are > > in the extension of the predicate in the > > appropriate way, either individually or > together. > > From this basis, a complete semantics can be > > (has been) developed, which produces the > > classical system with the "among" relation > added. > > Elaborate? To me, "among" has implications of > being "among a group such that". And so it does -- when used by a singularist. When used by a pluralist, it doesn't. But the properties of "among" are the same for both. > > In a totally parallel way, we can develop a > > semantics with things and masses and the > usual > > definitions of truth and get the same > classical > > system with "among" added. What is said is > the > > same, the conditions for truth are totally > > intertranslatable, and so on. > > > > > 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 a mass, or the students > > > individually. This is merely metaphysical hubris: it's my point of view, so the other must be defective in some way. Unfortunately, any way that the pluralist view is defective, the singularist is defective in an exactly matching fashion (in this case creating aentity that has no place in reality). > > > > > > > > > Show me how and what "the students" > refers > > > to. > > > > > > > > In the pluralist view, it does not refer > to > > > one thing. It refers to > > > > many things, > > > > i.e. the many students. > > > > > > Ok, then when I say "group of students", I > too > > > am "referring to many things". > > > > > > 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. > > > > By you, yes. By xorxes, no -- it is all > about > > the pictures in your head. > > > > > "[The [many students]]" refers to a group > of > > > students. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > That may be true. Is your argument then > that > > > conservatism requires > > > > that we stick with the singularist view? > (CLL > > > does concede that pronouns > > > > at least can refer to "individuals" or > > > "masses" depending on context, > > > > so even there one can find, at least in > > > embryonic form, the pluralist view.) > > > > > > My argument here was that the burden of > proof > > > is on you to show that > > > a) this pluralist view exists and is > correct, > > > > Exists is easy; there is the book (and a > number > > of others going back to the late thirties). > Is > > correct doesn't arise if the alternative is > the > > usual singularist view, since they are the > same > > thing. > > > > > and b) that Lojban uses > > > this pluralist view. Until you do this, you > > > should not attempt to use > > > this pluralist view in Lojban. > > > > We can't tell, of course, which one Lojban > uses > > because we can't get inside Lojban's head. > > Further, Lojban does not have devices for > > expressing some crucial distinction in the > > theory. > > Which distinctions? Primarily the difference between distributive and collective predication. Even {loi} does not appear to be just collective predication -- it seems clearly to involve corporate and Urgoo cases as well. And there are cases which cannot be dealt with using gadri. > > So the best thing to say is that Lojban > > ut nunc does not adhere to either view but > > sometimes does things that look like one, > > sometime like the other. The proposal, > stripped > > of its picture thinking, is just to make > Lojban > > adequate for the view(s) and so get rid of a > > number of false starts and missteps that a > > previous state of ignorance forced on us. > > My position is that if there was a state of > ignorance before, it's > being solved now by inducing a confusion, and > then not thinking too > deeply so that one does not see the problems. Well, that is polemics, not testable claims. Or, if testable, then false, since the theory is there before you (the one that is not easily documentable is the singularist one, actually). > > > > > > > > > > Then what surrounds the building? > Please > > > give an explanation, > > > > > hopefully a detailed one, as opposed to > a > === message truncated === <<> > > > > > > > Then what surrounds the building? Please > > give an explanation, > > > > hopefully a detailed one, as opposed to a > > vague 2-word answer. > > > > > > I'm afraid nothing further I might add will > > change your mind. Luckily > > > > Why are you using the word "further" here? The > > only thing you've done > > to change my mind is answer "the students" when > > I ask "what does 'the > > students' refer to?". > > But that is a completely adequate answer. If you > don't see that, then it is unlikely that anything > else will work either. I would be inclined to > have said that none of this matters, but that is > not going to be a point that works 200 some > entries into the discussion. No, it's not an adequate answer. When you ask me about my position, "what does 'together the students' refer to?", or "what does 'the students (individually) refer to?", I can, and have, given answers that were much more elaborate than "together the students" (aka "mass") and "the students (individually)" (aka "bunch-individually"), respectively (though the answers were still a bit crude). I could potentially write pages of explanations of the differences between the two. Not so with "bunch-together". The best that can be done with that one is to call it by different names.>> But, of course, "bunch" (outside its technical use) or "mass" or even "student individually" also adds nothing to the discussion: it is a word with (to a pluralist certainly) has not significant content. They, on the other hand, would find oit odd that you cannot understand such a straightforward English expression as "the students" (especially since you seem to understand te mysterious "the mass of students"). Note that, if you do write pages explaining the differnce, the pluralist can take it, make a few unifrom changes and provide you with the explanation you want for the difference between "the students individually" and "the students together." <<> > > > > for you, and for anyone else who prefers the > > singularist view, nothing > > > in Lojban prevents you from putting that view > > into practice. If you are > > > consistent with your view you simply won't > > apply a distributive and a > > > non-distributive predicate to the same sumti, > > you will always have > > > to split your bridis in two in such cases. > > This may make some things > > > more cumbersome to express, and I see nothing > > gained by it, but it's > > > always doable. > > > > Please show (a) and (b) before attempting to > > use your pluralist view > > in Lojban. Until you do, you should use the > > singularist view.>> Why? It is not privileged until shown to be so (which it cannot be, of course). Lojban is not consistently either -- assuming we could tell them apart. <<> As noted, Lojban's adherence to the singularist > view in detail is as open to exception as a > pluralist view -- Lojban can't express either one > in any thorough way. > > > > > This brings us right back to: > > > > > > > > 2) You can't use {lo danlu cu bajra gi'e > > blabi} to refer to a white > > > > dog and running cats, > > > > > > Right, because the animals that are running > > are not the same animals > > > that are white. In the case of the students, > > the people that are wearing the > > > hats are the same people that are surrounding > > the building. If they were > > > not the same people you could not use one > > sumti for both predications. > > > > You're switching the meaning of "the students" > > in mid-sentence. The > > thing that surrounds the building is one thing. > > I wonder if this is really defensible. If you > ask someone how many things are surrounding the > building, I expect that the answer "Fifty > students" will be more frequent than "One group > of students." "A bunch of students" is also very > likely, but flat ambiguous, if you think > singularist and pluralist are really different. If I ask someone what surrounds the building, they'll answer "a bunch of students" or "a group of students". "Bunch" will be used in the sense of "group", and not in the sense that we've defined it for the purposes of this conversation.>> You will no doubt take it that way; how are you sure the speaker meant it that way or even that he can sense the difference? << I will less frequently get the answer "fifty students", because it's seldom that people miss the forest for the trees, or in this case the crowd for each student, and when I do receive that answer, it'll be in the sense of "fifty students together".>> Precisely (though I am not so sure about your statistics). They mean the 50 students together, not something other than the students. Forst are just trees after all (with some exceptions like willow forests which are apparently just one tree). (I don't of course, really mean this. I am just pointing out how useless taking what someone says is in figuring out which of the identical sides they are on. <<> > > The thing(s) that wear > > hats are each something different. One thing > > being composed of others > > does not mean that it is the same as each > > component part. > > And no one said it was. > > > I am composed of my organs. When I run, my > > organs do not run. My > > organs together (i.e. my body) runs. > > Even that is open to some question; bodies tend > to be -- for purposes like running -- more than > the sum of their parts (well, at least different > from). Right. They aren't a mathematical set, they're a mass.>> More than that too, an organism. That is, the organs in an organization. Without the organization, the organs are just a pile of specimens. I think you are making the case for a body being a corporate entity, not either a msss or a set. We haven't got that developed yet, but it does not seem to say anything useful here -- unless you want to say that the students surrounding the building are also a corporation. I don't think that need be the case and, if it were, we would need a disvcussion different from the one so far. <<> > > > > > > > and so you can't use {[L_ muno tadni] cu > > [dasni > > > > lo mapku] gi'e [sruri le dinju]} to refer > > to a number of students and > > > > to a mass composed of students. > > > > > > Right, because the mass is not the students, > > so if you only allow singular > > > reference, you can refer either to the one > > mass of students or to each > > > one student individually. > > But, of course, you can predicate of that mass > distributively (or could if the language > allowed). What do you mean? Once you've made a mass, it's difficult to split it up.>> Set theory, which seems to be the model for talk of masses, does indeed not allow direct predication of members through predication of the set. It does it indirectly, by inclusion and perhaps some other relations. This is, of course, just an accident of the way the language of set theory was set up. As Lesniewski and now pluralist logic show, the set up could be different, making these distributive predications easier (and more obvious). That is, splitting a mass (in this sense) is merely a function of language and can be changed witha change of language. <<> > > > But if you allow plural reference, then it is > > the very same students who > > > wear the hats and surround the building. In > > this case, the two predicates > > > are predicated of the _same_ referents, and > > so you can use one sumti to > > > refer to them. > > > > What surrounds the building? > > (The students.) > > Does each student surround the building? > > (No.) > > Then what is it that surrounds the building? > > (The students.) > > So you mean the students together? > > (No, the students.) > > Yes, the students together, not that is anything > other than the students; it is just a way that > are predicated of > > > > I'm not being dense when I ask you these: I > > understand your position > > perfectly. You think that saying "the students" > > frees you from > > implying that they're a group. I recognize > > this, and I assert that > > it's incorrect. Avoiding the word > > "mass"/"crowd" when you say "the > > students" does not mean that "the students" > > does not refer to a group > > of students.. > > Well, actually it does. At least it allows it. > It does does not refer? What do you mean?>> I mean that using "the students" rather than "the group of students" does mean that the "the students" does not refer to a group. Of course, you can mean that equally well using "the group of students," but it is harder to see. And, by parity of reasoning (since the two are formally identical) "the students" does refer to a group, if you want to go that way, although it is clarer if you say "the group of students." 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.