From lojban-out@lojban.org Mon May 29 18:08:03 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 86633 invoked from network); 30 May 2006 01:08:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.67.36) by m22.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 30 May 2006 01:08:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 May 2006 01:08:01 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FksiE-0007ce-Fo for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 29 May 2006 18:07:58 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fksgk-0007bO-22; Mon, 29 May 2006 18:06:28 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 29 May 2006 18:06:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FksgI-0007aY-Jw for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 29 May 2006 18:05:58 -0700 Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com ([64.233.162.194]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FksgE-0007aP-EW for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 29 May 2006 18:05:58 -0700 Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id 4so569153nzn for ; Mon, 29 May 2006 18:05:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.114.10 with SMTP id m10mr3534847qbc; Mon, 29 May 2006 18:05:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.65.237.19 with HTTP; Mon, 29 May 2006 18:05:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560605291805y7f216d65v33b13eb6741ffda6@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 22:05:52 -0300 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <925d17560605160731j379ecfdbo42862a88433e112c@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605280905u63d61d78k73da849a8d7856f1@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605290655h478dc1c5rbf85df7e0e7312cf@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605291351i15f1def0ocb0e163cb7a6143c@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605291521s64cb0a2as821eea86d63839b8@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11695 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 2:12:4:0 X-eGroups-From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" Reply-To: jjllambias@gmail.com Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=A_rLgdOoDTD53u1IZsgOng5hGRbtpYrlGn7eJkxxx4oNG0Nfew X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 26115 On 5/29/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > > What surrounds the building? > > > (The students.) > > > Does each student surround the building? > > > (No.) > > > Then what is it that surrounds the building? > > > (The students.) > > > So you mean the students together? > > > (No, the students.) > > > ... > > > > The last one should be: "Yes, the students do it together." > > > Your definition of "together" seems very strange. I didn't offer a definition of "together". The sentence "the students do it together" is perfectly standard English as far as I can tell. >No definition described at > > http://www.answers.com/together?ff=1 > > seems to cover it, rather, they indicate that "together" is used to > describe masses of things, or reciprocal relationships. 3.b. By joint or cooperative effort: We ironed the entire load of clothes together. The students surrounded the building together. > "The 50 students (individually)" refers to each entity, that is, we > have a set of 50 entities that are students in mind. If we say that > "the students run", we mean that it is true that each student of this > set of 50 runs. If any of the students do not run, the statement is > false. > > "Together the students" refers to the students as a collective entity. > Sometimes, this collective entity can be seen as a "crowd" or a "mob". > When people look at groups of people, they never have trouble > recognizing that this amalgamation is an entity on its own - that is, > they see a forest, and not 10000 trees, they see a book, and not 500 > pages. "The forest is burning", and not "3542 trees are burning". So > when we say "together the students surround the building", we mean > this thing that is a mass of students surrounds the building. > > Can you offer something similar? It can be as crude as you'd like to > start, I just want /something/. I can only repeat what I have already said: "The students" refers to all the students in question, namely to Ann, Bob, Charles, Diana, ... and Zoe. We can predicate things about them in many different ways. We can say that they do things together, we can say that they do things individually, we can say that they do things in groups. In all cases, we are predicating things about the same students, i.e. about Ann, Bob, Charles, Diana, ... and Zoe. Some things, like wearing hats, they do individually. Other things, like surrounding the building, they do together. Some things, like holding hands, they do in pairs, some things, like talking to one another, they do in groups of three or four. But it is always the same students that do all these things. Some things it is not even clear or important whether we consider they do them together or individually. If I say "I see the students", I can think of it as saying that I see each of them or that I see them all together, it makes little difference. What's so difficult to understand? Certainly it is not the informal description that can cause any trouble. If it's the formalism that bothers you, then you will have to go to one of the references I gave you. I went through McKay's book and I didn't find any inconsistencies. I can certainly not explain to you the whole formalism of plural reference with all the theorems in a post here, perhaps if you find some dubious point we can discuss it, but nothing you've said suggests that it is something in the formalism that bothers you. You simply assert that plural reference is not sensible. 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.