Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 00:38:31 -0400
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Message-Id: <199407270438.AA22769@access3.digex.net>
To: salsbery@mailbox.syr.edu
Subject: Re:  Holmes, etc.
Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Wed Jul 27 00:38:35 1994
X-From-Space-Address: lojbab

I'm glad there is someone else out there with that nice "Dept. of Philosophy"
in their sig.  I never feel quite competent in arguing with Holmes.
Hopefully, soon our own logician, John Parks-Clifford of U Missouri st. Louis
will be on line.

I am not entirely sure what Holmes' objections are, but there are differences
between TLI Loglan and Lojban as to the default quantifiers of some of the
words used to create arguments/sumti - this may be causing the problems.

He seems to be making the logical argument that any statement about
(the members of) a set of 3 elements, is really an implied conjunction
of 3 separate sentences; i.e. if 3 men are A, B, and C, then "The
three men sat down (= le ci nanmu cu zutse) means logically that
A sat down and B sat down and C sat down.  Thus it is  almost a definition
of a plural sentence.

Loglan/Lojban does have a mechanism for making claims about a mass of 
multiple elements/components that do something together, even if they do
not individually do it.  But I don't think this type of claim is relevant to
Holmes' issue.

lojbab