From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Jun 06 12:51:15 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 06 Jun 2006 12:51:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FnhZn-0006kA-Gg for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 12:50:56 -0700 Received: from web81309.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.125]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FnhZl-0006k2-QO for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 12:50:55 -0700 Received: (qmail 36508 invoked by uid 60001); 6 Jun 2006 19:50:52 -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=t/NmUziQafMDgc/OYoCvMMeMORr6CVMdWpr0zEIpL06o9l160j2Z+nSPt8a2gVTxEGchoudUCWx0aJtXIPgGrf90aeyWfROcsPZPVamwKSQZUVYwiq1UtLXaUZxPG9uktD8fYclrep/4ea8mupliKPH0q2aN3KioGd52zEkNhsE= ; Message-ID: <20060606195052.36506.qmail@web81309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.237.215.142] by web81309.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 12:50:52 PDT Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 12:50:52 -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: 11745 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 This seems to be dialectal. I can't say "Alice is a shipmate," not even as short for "Alice is a shipmate of someone." So "Alsice and David are shipmates" in the distributive sense is not possible for me either. (But I think the analysis of "Alice and David are not shipmates" as being collective is also mistaken.) --- Maxim Katcharov wrote: > On 6/5/06, Alex Martini > wrote: > > > > On Jun 5, 2006, at 9:12 PM, 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: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > My argument here was that the burden > of > > >> > proof is on you to show that > > >> > > > a) this pluralist view exists > > >> > > > > >> > > You can check that the pluralist view > exists > > >> > for example starting > > >> > > here: > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > The "external links" at the bottom of > the > > >> > page are also interesting. > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > I don't argue that people don't support > it, I > > >> > argue that it has no > > >> > distinct existance aside from "mass", > and so is > > >> > not correct. > > >> > > >> I suggest you actually read the book, > especially > > >> the formal semantics. Or read some of > Quine's > > >> stuff (I'm sorry I don't have references > to > > >> hand). > > > > > > I've read the first chapter of McKay's, and > found that the author > > > confused several issues. For example, he > states that Alice is not a > > > shipmate on her own, when she clearly is. > She is shipmate of Bryce and > > > Carol, etc. because she is in the same > group as them, and not a > > > shipmate of David and Erica, because they > are of a different group. > > > > > > Two things regarding the suggestion. First, > it seems that you think > > > that I don't understand how it works. I > think that I do understand how > > > it works, it's just that I disagree with > it. Second, I'm not arguing > > > with Quine, or McKay, because sadly they > don't subscribe to this list. > > > I'm arguing with you and xorxes. I expect > you to be able to argue > > > against my position as well as Quine or > McKay would, otherwise you > > > really have no business arguing for or > believing in their position. > > > If I show you to be wrong, you'll may just > end up falling back on "oh, > > > well, that doesn't mean that Quine was > wrong". > > > > > > > I beg to differ -- no person can ever be his > own shipmate, any more > > than he can be his own sibling or classmate > or anything else of that > > type. > > So? You can't be a kicker without a thing > kicked, you can't be a > toucher without something to touch. In the same > way, you can't be a > shipmate without another shipmate. However, > Alice /has/ a shipmate. > McKay states > > " > "Arnie, Bob and Carlos are shipmates." This is > something true of the > three of them together. We cannot say "Arnie is > a shipmate" except > perhaps as elliptical for something that > connects Arnie to others. > (Arnie is a shipmate of someone.) > " > > The problem with that is that we can say "Arnie > is a shipmate". > There's no perhaps here. What we mean when we > say "Arnie is a > shipmate" is that he's a shipmate of someone. > > The first, "A B C are shipmates", is an > altogether different > relationship than "A is a shipmate". The former > says "A B C > are-part-of-a-group (called ?)", the latter > says "A > is-in-a-group-with/is-a-mate-of ?". > > Let's take Alice and David: Alice and B C are > of class 306, David and > E F are of class 201. > > Alice and David are classmates. > Alice and David aren't classmates. > > Both are (can be) true, since "classmates" can > mean two things. First, > it can be treated as a standard plural: it is > true that Alice is a > classmate (of B C), and that David is a > classmate (of E F), and so > Alice and David are classmates. However, they > aren't classmates of > *each other*, which is the usual interpretation > of "classmates" (mates > of the same grouping). > > > The word inherently implies a *different* > member of the *same* > > group. For example, if I say {Alice and her > shipmates arrived.}, > > including Alice in her shipmates is quite > absurd since she is then > > counted twice. > > Sure. This is the "mate" relationship. Alice > and the mates of Alice > arrived. Obviously not Alice and everyone in > the same group as Alice > arrived. > > > If I say {All my classmates left the room.}, > I don't > > include myself. These types of words simply > don't allow a reciprocal > > relationship. > > > > > 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. > > 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.