From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Jul 11 08:47:17 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 11 Jul 2006 08:47:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G0KRs-0004cF-PS for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 08:46:56 -0700 Received: from web81315.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.41]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G0KRr-0004c6-3F for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 08:46:56 -0700 Received: (qmail 99788 invoked by uid 60001); 11 Jul 2006 15:46:54 -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=PpO+ert/cxiIA0UijBG/8vqZjro1OKYBNjfi39rZCRqgQl26hGnJd2pWHK3Y0wuKr8emdi8tJgimR5RkJhFouBH3edh4eHK2D6ak8YIHPQDsPMhcYzyYqv+ViKnRxmHypulnzCBm1OyH/fEy3XGIMSqtlfQULytpiBOj7ecwfc4= ; Message-ID: <20060711154654.99785.qmail@web81315.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.237.228.212] by web81315.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 08:46:54 PDT Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 08:46:54 -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: -0.7 (/) X-archive-position: 12100 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 How much formal semantics do you know? What version are you most familiar with, if any? I am trying to find some common background that would be adequate to explain both your psoition and xorxes' in a single framework. I thought it could be done in ordinary talk, but xorxes' efforts along that line suggest that it cannot be. Incidentally (well, not really), when we get done with all the xplanation it wills till turn out that the two ways of talking are equivalent, that for every sentence of one there is another sentence (often outwardly identical)that is true in exactly the same situations (necessarily). --- Maxim Katcharov wrote: > On 7/10/06, Jorge Llamb�as wrote: > > On 7/10/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > > > > > What's a plural variable? > > > > A variable that can have more than one referent at the same time. > > > > > I point out that again, you're not offering any sort of explanation of > > > 'non-distributive', you're simply assuming that it exists. > > > > All right then, we'll just have to leave it at that. I'm afraid my pedagogical > > resources are exhausted. > > > > I don't think that you've explained anything, though you've certainly > repeated "plural predication exists" many, many times. I take your > inability to explain your position as a sign that your position isn't > based on something explicable. If you do think that you've offered an > explanation of plural predication, let me know where it is. I would > hate to have your exchanges end and have missed it. > > > 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.