From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed May 31 16:49:34 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 31 May 2006 16:49:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FlaRA-0006ra-CH for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 31 May 2006 16:49:16 -0700 Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com ([64.233.162.202]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FlaR7-0006rT-3J for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 31 May 2006 16:49:16 -0700 Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id 14so152572nzn for ; Wed, 31 May 2006 16:49:11 -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=ICh75nXwdpsNp1S1FK3hYicNwxPLyWpnQphnrhyxzjemfHhYtN5bs57+iEC8ZdqwJ8yUZsKdd/1o2QZNz8X6PqpoHb0BV5RXAFQcUv90TwzEmJ9uFnvfmdo8ggcVZ7jlQPsmVI2mVXVJ9wWrJHeiyAS7wTU9VYlt+w4j8esTykE= Received: by 10.65.22.5 with SMTP id z5mr954937qbi; Wed, 31 May 2006 16:49:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.65.237.19 with HTTP; Wed, 31 May 2006 16:49:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560605311649w51e71fc5r26c9b71da03e94f3@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 20:49:11 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} In-Reply-To: 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> <925d17560605291521s64cb0a2as821eea86d63839b8@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605291805y7f216d65v33b13eb6741ffda6@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605300707y79d20b95nd621ac89c5e17215@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605310741g384f22b1k5b91aba8173006cd@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11702 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On 5/31/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > On 5/31/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > > On 5/30/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > > > > > They must be arranged in a certain way whereby they form a surrounder > > > of the building. > > > > Indeed, that's what the predicate claims. > > I hope that you read my sentence well before responding. Yes, the predicate "x1 (many things) form x2 (one thing)" relates many things to one thing. {lo so'i tadni cu se gunma lo pa gunma}. "The many students form one group, a group which surrounds the building." or: "The many students surrround the building." Both are valid ways of describing the same situation, either by referring to a group, formed by the students, such that the single group surrounds the building, or by referring directly to the students and saying that _they_ (not some single _it_) surround the building. One way does not invalidate the other. > > That is a perfectly fine way of looking at it, and I have never disputed > > that. What I have disputed is your claim that it is the *only* possible > > or sensible way of looking at it. > > You seem to have something against seeing the students as a mass, > otherwise you wouldn't be arguing for a position that doesn't > "mention" mass. No, I have nothing at all against seeing students as a mass. I'm perfectly fine with it, as I said many times already. I am also fine with, and I think in some circumstances it is more useful, the other view whereby the mass is not referred to. One view does not preclude the other. > I take that to mean that when saying "the students surround the > building" you assert that you make no reference to any mass, yes? Correct, that's the pluralist take. > You do not go around waving a red banner stating "composite entity!", > but they form a composite entity regardless: > > They must be arranged in a certain way whereby they form a surrounder > of the building. > > the mass is "a surrounder of the building". And it is treated *as a mass*. They can be treated as a mass surrounding the building, yes, but they (the same "they") are also wearing hats, and they can't be treated as a mass wearing a hat. > "The students" could mean either something that /is/ a set > (individually), or /is/ a mass. In "the students surround the > building", it is predicated as a mass. I'm not sure what you mean by saying that "the students" could mean something that is a set. It could not. No individual student is a set and the students together are not a set either. The students can be _members_ of a set. The students together could eventually be taken to "be" a mass or a group, but they can't be taken to be a mathematical set. > > else is predicated of its referents. You don't need to know what the > > predicate will be in order to identify the referents of "the students". > > Tell me then, does "the students" refer to a composite entity composed > of students, or a group/set of students? If neither, please describe > what is referenced. "The students" refers to the students themselves. I don't know how better to describe the students than as "the students". There is no single entity being referred to under the pluralist interpretation. > > > What is the distinction between doing things together and doing things > > > in groups? > > > > I think "together" suggests "in a single group". > > > > The guests arrived together. (They all arrived at the same time.) > > The guests arrived in groups. (None arrived alone.) > > Then the "groups" variant is beside the point of our discussion, no? It is also covered by plural reference. We not only have the two extreme cases (all together in one group, or each individually by itself), but by moving the distributivity indication to the predicate (where I think it belongs) we can also cover intermediate cases like "in groups of three or four". So: le vitke cu pamei tolcliva The guests arrived singly. le vitke cu romei tolcliva The guests arrived "all-ly" (all together). le vitke cu remei tolcliva The guests arrived in pairs. You could easily do the first two with your method, but the third one would be more complicated. > > "The students surrounded the pole" covers any of these situations: > > > > The students surrounded the pole one at a time. > > individually. > > > The students surrounded the pole in groups of three. > > individually, groups of three students surrounded the pole, sure. > ... > > The students surrounded the pole five times each, in varying groups of four. > > The students surrounded the pole taking turns for five minutes. > > The students surrounded the pole for two hours. > > The students surrounded the pole first together and then in pairs. > > etc. > > etc. > > > > They are all covered by "the students surrounded the pole". > > > > Ok, now tell me which one is the pluralist view. The pluralist view is that "the students surrounded the pole" covers them all. > They all seem like > very nice examples of either the students as a mass, or as > individuals, or groups of students as individuals. Including "the students surrounded the pole"? But consider for example "the students surrounded the pole for two hours". Does it say that each of them did it individually for two hours, that they took turns so that they covered two hours among them, that they were all sorrounding it for two hours, that they sorrounded it in turns and in groups for two hours, that...? Doesn't it cover all those possibilities and more? 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.