From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Jul 12 12:39:42 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 12 Jul 2006 12:39:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G0kYN-00045O-0K for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 12:39:23 -0700 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.177]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G0kYL-00045H-3I for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 12:39:22 -0700 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id x31so464414pye for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 12:39:20 -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=FhdAms/C9k3oyqpo2EVwwg8MTwauKO1ObZuA0S/Bnw4O09ehxdFVacufWGq29hDcUj2Ma3ynLaextdq3K1X+1iKmIwiWLu+K5aIT0GaCPm8sMf3T34UcjjhJI4R8V34kzykoi+F3P+6wm7UnR4fmmvNLuzG6Lrml0sXOiXwb9GU= Received: by 10.35.121.9 with SMTP id y9mr1323735pym; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 12:39:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.39.7 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 12:39:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 13:39:19 -0600 From: "Maxim Katcharov" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} In-Reply-To: <925d17560607121113y4d0be37y1fe4757a46c030f4@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: <20060711233003.36140.qmail@web81310.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <925d17560607120531v7de5bfefwa96db493b274fbdf@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560607121113y4d0be37y1fe4757a46c030f4@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-archive-position: 12157 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 7/12/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 7/12/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > > No, I want to know how you explain why the singular is the only one > > that is not subject to collectivity. > > You need at least two things before you can have a distinction between > distributing or not distributing something among them. Isn't that obvious? It's obvious by my account, but not by yours. My account offers an explanation of this, and exactly how it comes about. You seem to take this (and several other important points) for granted, instead of having a better look at why this is so.. Your distributive and collective are markers for your 'variable plural/singular reference'. Your distributive has a certain type of relationship between the students and the hat, your collective has a certain type of relationship between the students and the building. Which one do you use when 'the student(s)' is singular? Can you use both? Perhaps you use neither, and some third way? I don't remember your (I think strange) way of marking distributivity/collectivity explicitly. Does anything prevent you from using {pa} in both? ...though I doubt that receiving the answers to these questions is going to help me understand what how you think language works, since I still don't know the nature of your relationship that points to these 26 students collectively - in fact, I don't think that I'm very sure that I understand the relationship that points to these 26 students individually. My explanation of "relationship" is very consistent. Two identities are directly related. Your explanation hasn't been more than a wide wave of the arm in the direction of "the 26 students"; "yeah, those things yonder are related to this building/these hats". Uh, /how/? The only way I can think of a relationship working is directly, by taking one identity, and drawing a mental line to another identity, or to a concept. Perhaps you can offer me an explanation as to what else a 'relationship' could be. I offer that "a human cannot conceive of 100 identities. If he does not conceive of each, and yet conceives of something with 100 as its number, then what is it that he has in his head? Some one thing else." proves that a position that suggests that there are in fact 100 things in our mind that we predicate things of is wrong. If language should be a reflection of thought, then it would be wrong to use structures that suggest this. ...from my response to John. > > > Why does adding a distributive > > (and collective) marker to a singular make no sense? > > Because there is no distinction to be made. Why does it not make > any difference to order a set of numbers from smallest to largest or > from largest to smallest when the set contains a single number? > Same thing with distributivity, if there is only one thing, distributive > and non-distributive give identical results. > > 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.