From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sat May 27 17:55:00 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 27 May 2006 17:55:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fk9YH-0005oj-3u for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sat, 27 May 2006 17:54:41 -0700 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.173]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fk9YF-0005oa-2M for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 27 May 2006 17:54:40 -0700 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id j40so520781ugd for ; Sat, 27 May 2006 17:54:37 -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=F9GxxEuTJDCRvsUYJ+laexh3otmrMDYz1JM3g3qm0GeruyLvC4hQftX7znU9894abvx+rdYyUOwgZdAs+byX5aQ5CV749GARV7u57hL3e/8pkWOXJbWXr2d6NMOkZzmpo9s/ot/JUiYoTq/P0n/bxkbIrUamCFbWZZKmvbFUqtg= Received: by 10.67.108.27 with SMTP id k27mr718815ugm; Sat, 27 May 2006 17:54:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.66.255.6 with HTTP; Sat, 27 May 2006 17:54:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 18:54:37 -0600 From: "Maxim Katcharov" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} In-Reply-To: <925d17560605271658m1056888dm5385d20dc29df6db@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: <925d17560605160731j379ecfdbo42862a88433e112c@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605240608t20353b28gd96dea490efc8a71@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605250957g29c9e972l4543c11102fc891f@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605260732u5039a616jf8c220a7a485a12a@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605270712l6aa155efic0a7482d4ee0ba43@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605271658m1056888dm5385d20dc29df6db@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -1.8 (-) X-archive-position: 11681 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 5/27/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 5/27/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > On 5/27/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > > > All I'm saying is that the view that > > > does not introduce any encompassing entity is, for me at least, the most > > > useful. That way I can say: > > > > > > le mu no tadni cu dasni lo mapku gi'e sruri le dinju > > > "The fifty students wore hats and surrrounded the building." > > > > > > without claiming that there was any single entity that both wore a hat > > > and surrounded the building. > > > > This is a somewhat absurd misrepresentation (or misunderstanding) of > > my position. I've never said that this entity (the mass of students) > > would wear a single hat; this is clearly and absolutely wrong. But > > this entity /would/ surround the building. We say two things: "50 > > things wear hats", "1 thing surrounds the building". > > Right. I suppose it doesn't bother you that the same phrase {le mu no > tadni} is being used to refer to the fifty things and also to the one thing at > the same time. I don't think it's right, which is why I don't support your ambiguous "individual here, together there" use of {lo}. > Personally, I prefer to say that it just refers to the fifty things, > and that both claims are about those fifty things only. But in the end it > doesn't really matter. If we both agree that the sentence is proper Lojban, Which sentence? No, I don't think that it's ok to use {lo cribe} individually in one part, and then as a mass in another part. You should use lu'o or similar. > and we both understand what it means, it is of little consequence how we > analyze it. Each can choose his own explanation. We would only have a > problem if one of us thought that the phrase was normal Lojban and the > other thought it made some weird claim. > > > > > When {su'o} is used, you don't mean some special number called "some". > > > > You mean that the listener should make a best guess as to what the > > > > number could be (maybe it's five, maybe it's all of whatever number is > > > > the inner). > > > > > > I think it would be more correct to say that {su'o} is a special quantifier > > > (if not strictly a number) called "some". For example, in: > > > > > > naku su'o prenu cu klama > > > It is not the case that at least some person came. > > > > > > you don't want the listener to make any best guess for {su'o}. Any number > > > you replace {su'o} with will make a claim different from the one intended. > > > > How are the following different: > > > > naku su'o lo prenu cu klama > > > > naku lo prenu cu klama > > Not very different. The point of the example was to show that {su'o} is not > an invitation to the listener to make a best guess at a number. By your replies further in the thread, they seem to be quite different for you: > > naku su'o lo prenu cu klama Not the case that some people came. > > naku lo prenu cu klama May mean that they didn't come as a mass, or that not the case that some people came - we can't really tell which. > > > > lo tadni pu sruri le dinju > > > "Students surrrounded the building." > > > > > > su'o lo tadni pu sruri le dinju > > > "At least one student surrounded the building." > > > > How are these claims different, aside from the first English one > > meaning "at least 2" because of the plural form? > > The second one for me says that there was at least one student that > surrounded the building him or herself, because outer quantifiers are > distributive. The first one does not make that unlikely claim. Ok, so your rule for using {lo} distributively/ambiguously is "if the outer is blank, it is ambiguous, otherwise, distributive", correct? > > > lo cribe pu citka ro le mi jbari > > > "Bears ate all my berries." > > > > > > su'o lo cribe pu citka ro le mi jbari > > > "At least one bear ate all my berries." > > > > Again, how are these different? > > The first one does not claim that at least one bear ate all the berries > by itself, while the second one does. > > > > > > > > {ro lo mapku} = each hat > > > > > > > {lo ro mapku} = all hats > > > > > > > > > > > > All of what hats? > > > > > > > > > > All things that count as hats. > > > > > > > > All things that count as hats are All hats (existing now, future, > > > > past, hypothetically, etc.). Your "all" is very different. Your "all" > > > > means "all of some relevant/contextually-sensible group". > > > > > > No. As I said before "all hats" is contextually sensible, because > > > what counts as a hat is contextually sensible, but it does not > > > mean "all contextually sensible hats" because when you mention > > > "contextually sensible hats" you immediately bring into the picture > > > hats that are not contextually sensible as well. In other words, context > > > > If you and I are talking of Alice and Bob talking about "all hats", my > > saying that "all hats means all contextually sensible hats" does > > **not** bring "all other hats" into *Alice and Bob's* conversation. It > > brings it into *our* conversation. > > Right. I probably misunderstand your use of quotes then. When you say > "X" means "Y", you don't mean that you can replace X with Y and get the > same meaning, then? u'i, ok: "did you see [all of a contextually sensible group of bears] when you went to the zoo?" "did you see all *the* bears when you went to the zoo?" ...are equivalent. Yes, you can replace them. The simple implication of non-relevant bears noes *not* include those irrelevant bears in the *contextually sensible/relevant* group of bears. > > > > sensibility is something that you can discuss in the metalanguage, > > > when discussing what a phrase means, it is not something that you > > > can incorporate into the phrase without changing its meaning. > > > > Luckily, we're not incorporating it into the phrase, rather we're > > talking about its meaning within the phrase. > > OK, in that case we may be in agreement. {lo ro mapku} refers to all things > that count as hats in the context where the phrase is used, not to things that > may count as hats in other contexts, since those other things by definition > are inaccessible in the context where the phrase was used. It cannot therefore > be equivalent to another phrase with a restriction in it. What cannot be equivalent to what other phrase with what kind of restriction in 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.