From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sun Jun 11 07:11:40 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 11 Jun 2006 07:11:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FpQew-0000BS-03 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sun, 11 Jun 2006 07:11:22 -0700 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.182]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FpQes-0000BK-KC for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 11 Jun 2006 07:11:21 -0700 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id x31so1434089pye for ; Sun, 11 Jun 2006 07:11:17 -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=h8Aw4Rg9AotWlxZHO64dtIxUQ3sF2Pr/2XE3Yz1CHuwhifWyDseBfjlSD972JCs7PqxqJzpqVFefo3xeq0fhABgOi4Dkit3p/UzvuNi5yBlKlhJ7NZH0fj8hPsRTmVaaKrJXZvHBjG5FiyYOo6PZu2f+OMeiyDLeXAhPp3kVEqw= Received: by 10.35.135.12 with SMTP id m12mr408830pyn; Sun, 11 Jun 2006 07:11:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.39.13 with HTTP; Sun, 11 Jun 2006 07:11:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 08:11:17 -0600 From: "Maxim Katcharov" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} In-Reply-To: <925d17560606110650o59bf82e9ye037061cea611f6a@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: <925d17560606080832j516fc7c9g7783a394f3d1074a@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560606090549k2275f466x7802ac6c9b6abfd3@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560606090813o32d608e3pa4fef3f3190c0c4c@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560606100706j1b7f03bpb0a62b6ce99b613d@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560606110650o59bf82e9ye037061cea611f6a@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-archive-position: 11784 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 6/11/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 6/11/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > On 6/10/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > > > An outermost quantifier is distributive, > > > an outermost mass-marker is non-distributive. It's that simple. > > > > No doubt it's a simple rule, but the question is if it's the proper > > way to describe how we communicate. > > It's a proper way to describe how I understand Lojban works. > That's all I can offer you. > > > > la .alis .e la betis = ro le re prenu > > > la .alis joi la betis = lei re prenu > > > la .alis jo'u la betis = le re prenu > > > > Are you offering these definitions as suggestions, or > > as explanations of how it really is? > > As explanations of how I understand them to work in Lojban. pagbu and gunma, based on the information (from CLL and the gismu list) that I provided, seemed to be the corresponding ideas. What are you basing your interpretations on? > > > So you would disagree that > > > > loi tadni cu sruri lo dinju > > > > expands to > > > > [da poi sruri lo dinju] cu gunma [lo tadni] > > > > which you had previously described as a legitimate interpretation, > > yes? > > Using your place structure for {gunma} with distributive x2, I > would disagree, yes. I agreed when I thought we were using > {gunma} with the same meaning. This is an expansion of non-distributivity. By its nature, one should assume that it doesn't use yet more non-distributivity to explain itself. > > > {loi tadni cu sruri lo skori} and {ro lo tadni cu > > sruri lo skori} are different in some way, yes? > > Yes. > > > I'm asking you to explain the difference. > > I've already already done that. (And besides you understand > the difference perfectly well.) I understand *my* difference perfectly well. So far you've given me "differences" that apply to both distributive and non-distributive. The surest way to show that I'm a fool for asking this 30th time is to point me to an explanation that I haven't rightly shown to be unexplanatory. > > > Alice is part of X > > X surrounds the building > > > > Alice wears a hat > > > > Is the difference not apparent there? > > Yes. In the pluralist view one would say instead: > > Alice is one of X > X surround the building In which case you'd no longer be using first order logic. Now, if the axiomic nature of first order logic is not available to you, then you should use something else. But you can't just say that your pluralist interpretation is axiomic itself, because it clearly isn't. And what's the difference between that and Alice is one of X X wear the hats Clearly, Alice does not relate in the same way to the wearing of hats as she does to the surroundment of the building, but you seem to gloss over this *critically* important point. What's the difference between: Alice is one of X X surround the rope (e.g. they're standing around a rope) and Alice is one of X X surround the rope (e.g. they're playing tug-of-war) > > In the singularist approach, X is a single thing, distinct from the > things that surround the building and consisting of them, while > in the plural approach X are many things, just those very things > that surround the building. > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > > 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.