From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sat Jun 03 19:57:07 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 03 Jun 2006 19:57:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FminI-0005Qw-BN for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sat, 03 Jun 2006 19:56:48 -0700 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.171]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FminG-0005Qp-5B for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 03 Jun 2006 19:56:48 -0700 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id j40so894095ugd for ; Sat, 03 Jun 2006 19:56:44 -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=ohjAOQ2u+i/zgqn2pVS8dJJ2/MNEB5egcFYY57GdQai2bdBFhIukuqbZY7RQHzwvOurn5SD6ezk00JvxsvEeKfZvrLdSqLR+bZpSX1kqp3WXXtvvar1TRUntOGxBZH2ftNZV+aLicL4mHSKojV4J0zrFL8H6lufuy4NLkORMnlE= Received: by 10.66.216.6 with SMTP id o6mr2164537ugg; Sat, 03 Jun 2006 19:56:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.66.255.6 with HTTP; Sat, 3 Jun 2006 19:56:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 20:56:44 -0600 From: "Maxim Katcharov" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} In-Reply-To: <925d17560606031924x522d0655kb30e8441b87adda9@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: <20060603162029.74094.qmail@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <925d17560606031507u3caf439fof06571b7b02e3e6d@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560606031815w3179c445tc9b750f97931f114@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560606031924x522d0655kb30e8441b87adda9@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) X-archive-position: 11723 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 6/3/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 6/3/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > On 6/3/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > > > > No, "26 students" refers in both cases to 26 students and it is only used > > > for that, in both cases to refer to those 26 students. > > > > > No, it *refers* to the 26 students in the same way (by your > > reckoning), but it is *used* differently. > > Its only use is to refer, in both cases. > > > It is absurd to suggest that > > "26 students" is *used* in the exact same way in both "...surrounded > > the building" and "...wore hats". > > II don't see what's absurd about it. Because it confuses "Alice herself wore a hat" with whatever you have for "Alice ...??... surrounded a building". Alice herself does not surround the building, and Alice ...??... does (do?) not wear a hat. > > > In "...wore hats", it is used in a way that means that Alice herself wore a hat. > > Yes, because "wore hats" is distributive. So each predicate is marked for distributivity/non-distributivity (bunch-indiv/bunch-together)? What is {lo tadni cu bebna} marked for? How about {lo tadni cu sruri lo skori}? What if they're playing tug-of-war? What if they're standing around a rope looking up at the person climbing it? What if several paths surround the building, and we're talking of them? > > > In "...surrounded the building", it is used in a way that means Alice...? > > ...participated in the surrounding of the building, because "surrounded the > building" is collective. So it expands to {la alis cmizu'e nu ...}? No, "surrounded the building" is not inherently collective, and neither is any other selbri or sumti-slot. > > The difference comes from the two different predicates, not from the referring > expression "26 students". > > > One answer is that she was a component of the mass that surrounded the > > building - this is my answer. > > I don't have an objection to that. I wasn't suggesting that you did, I was giving an example of an answer that is straightforward and sensible. But I'll go ahead anyway: None at all? You must have a relative objection that makes you choose "plural predication" over it, right? > > > The other answer (that you offered) was that she was the referent of > > the 26 students that surround the building. > > She is _one of_ the referents, yes. Yes, "a" not "the". > > > This doesn't explain > > anything, because she's also a referent of the 26 students that wore > > hats. > > Of course, since "the 26 students" has the same referents in both > cases, if she is one of them in one case she is one of them in the > other. > > There is no difference in the referring expression. The difference is in > the predicate. > Predicates don't have default distributivity/non-distributivity. 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.