From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Jun 06 12:43:59 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 06 Jun 2006 12:43:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FnhSm-0006eo-8x for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 12:43:40 -0700 Received: from web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.120]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FnhSk-0006ee-2c for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 12:43:40 -0700 Received: (qmail 19579 invoked by uid 60001); 6 Jun 2006 19:43:36 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=bV0CwEP/KMX1HKeXsVbu9vJMyJEnEkABNxOYdoBNDgL6T6D5oIeBBUrXkmwpSAFKgl4hMaHr3nii7j6438LPkBu7GqqTQ1Szeov4KUAxsfh5WJZTAGsNpcT/Eat+lNM96cXd8NYg51mSHJK5QGt56aJTtyM9WUGM84vP1y6JemQ= ; Message-ID: <20060606194336.19577.qmail@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.237.215.142] by web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 12:43:36 PDT Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 12:43:36 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-archive-position: 11744 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --- Maxim Katcharov wrote: > On 6/5/06, John E Clifford > wrote: > > > > > > --- Maxim Katcharov > > > wrote: > > > > > On 5/29/06, Jorge Llambías > > > wrote: > > > > On 5/29/06, Maxim Katcharov > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Avoiding the word "mass"/"crowd" when > you > > > say "the students" does not > > > > > mean that "the students" does not refer > to > > > a group of students. It > > > > > does. > > > > > > > > That's the singularist view, yes. But it > is > > > not the only possible view. > > > > > > Ok, then please show an alternate view. > You've > > > flatly asserted that > > > one exists, yet when I ask you to explain > it, a > > > vague two-word answer > > > ("the students") with no explanation or > > > demonstrative examples is all > > > I get. > > > > On a pluralist view, reference is a relation, > not > > a function, so that a single term may refer > > simultaneously to several things. > > Sure. In my singularist view, I too prefer to > think of it as a > relation. "run(dog, road)" seems silly to me. I don't see what this is illustrating or, perhaps, just what is says about the way reference is treated: function or relation. > The question that I pose > is: what is the nature of the relation between, > say, Alice (one of the > students that surrounds the building) and the > surrounding of the > building? The relation is crystal clear between > Alice and the wearing > of a hat, but the building-surroundment > relation seems to be > vaporizing as xorxes tries to nail it down. I > suspect that this is > because the true nature of this pluralist > relationship is that of a > mass - the relationship is that Alice is part > of a mass/group that > surrounds the building, and that there simply > is no other sensible > interpretation. Well, I suppose that Alice's relation surrounding the building (when she is one of the students surrounding the building)is "participation." I suppose that giving it a name is not going to satisfy you (quite rightly) but if I lay out the formal specifications of the relation, you will just say "Oh, that's just membership in the group." Or if I try to specify it in extension, spelling out how she particpates (standing NEbyN of the building at the same time as others are standing at the other points of the compass, say) you will relate that to being a member of the group as well. To which I can only say "Precisely" -- singularist and pluralist languages are two different ways of stating the same facts. They are completely intertranslatable in a one-one mechanical way. You want a pluralist claim that is not interpretable as a singularist one and there just ain't any. This whole discussion is totally vacuous. > > A sentence > > using this term will be true if those things > are > > in the extension of the predicate in the > > appropriate way, either individually or > together. > > From this basis, a complete semantics can be > > (has been) developed, which produces the > > classical system with the "among" relation > added. > > Elaborate? To me, "among" has implications of > being "among a group such that". And so it does -- when used by a singularist. When used by a pluralist, it doesn't. But the properties of "among" are the same for both. > > In a totally parallel way, we can develop a > > semantics with things and masses and the > usual > > definitions of truth and get the same > classical > > system with "among" added. What is said is > the > > same, the conditions for truth are totally > > intertranslatable, and so on. > > > > > I doubt that you'll be left anything to > explain > > > your position with > > > once you start explaining. The pluralist > view > > > relies on not looking > > > too deeply at what "the students" means, > > > because once you do you see > > > that it's either a mass, or the students > > > individually. This is merely metaphysical hubris: it's my point of view, so the other must be defective in some way. Unfortunately, any way that the pluralist view is defective, the singularist is defective in an exactly matching fashion (in this case creating aentity that has no place in reality). > > > > > > > > > Show me how and what "the students" > refers > > > to. > > > > > > > > In the pluralist view, it does not refer > to > > > one thing. It refers to > > > > many things, > > > > i.e. the many students. > > > > > > Ok, then when I say "group of students", I > too > > > am "referring to many things". > > > > > > Avoiding the word "mass"/"crowd" when you > say > > > "the students" does not > > > mean that "the students" does not refer to > a > > > group of students. It > > > does. > > > > By you, yes. By xorxes, no -- it is all > about > > the pictures in your head. > > > > > "[The [many students]]" refers to a group > of > > > students. > > > > > > > > > > > > Additionally, I don't think that Lojban > > > uses this mistaken concept of > > > > > "plural predication": it seems that the > > > book that describes it has not > > > > > been published yet, and so Lojban > predates > > > it by about 20 years. > > > > > > > > That may be true. Is your argument then > that > > > conservatism requires > > > > that we stick with the singularist view? > (CLL > > > does concede that pronouns > > > > at least can refer to "individuals" or > > > "masses" depending on context, > > > > so even there one can find, at least in > > > embryonic form, the pluralist view.) > > > > > > My argument here was that the burden of > proof > > > is on you to show that > > > a) this pluralist view exists and is > correct, > > > > Exists is easy; there is the book (and a > number > > of others going back to the late thirties). > Is > > correct doesn't arise if the alternative is > the > > usual singularist view, since they are the > same > > thing. > > > > > and b) that Lojban uses > > > this pluralist view. Until you do this, you > > > should not attempt to use > > > this pluralist view in Lojban. > > > > We can't tell, of course, which one Lojban > uses > > because we can't get inside Lojban's head. > > Further, Lojban does not have devices for > > expressing some crucial distinction in the > > theory. > > Which distinctions? Primarily the difference between distributive and collective predication. Even {loi} does not appear to be just collective predication -- it seems clearly to involve corporate and Urgoo cases as well. And there are cases which cannot be dealt with using gadri. > > So the best thing to say is that Lojban > > ut nunc does not adhere to either view but > > sometimes does things that look like one, > > sometime like the other. The proposal, > stripped > > of its picture thinking, is just to make > Lojban > > adequate for the view(s) and so get rid of a > > number of false starts and missteps that a > > previous state of ignorance forced on us. > > My position is that if there was a state of > ignorance before, it's > being solved now by inducing a confusion, and > then not thinking too > deeply so that one does not see the problems. Well, that is polemics, not testable claims. Or, if testable, then false, since the theory is there before you (the one that is not easily documentable is the singularist one, actually). > > > > > > > > > > Then what surrounds the building? > Please > > > give an explanation, > > > > > hopefully a detailed one, as opposed to > a > === message truncated === <<> > > > Because it was written in a book, and because > > you need it to be true > > in order to support your position in this > > argument of ours? Answer > > this honestly. > > Because, from my point of view it offers the best > solution to a number of problems in Lojban. The > solutions are equally available within the > singularist position, but are less likely to be > used because the long habit of singularists is > set theory and that does not allow for > distributive predication on sets. I think I'm an example of the singularist position, and really, I don't want to have much to do with mathematical sets. I like "bunches". Which problems are solved by the pluralist view?>> Not exactly by the pluralist view (since it is equally a singularist one) but by the broader logic that the pluralists have called to our attention (though it has been there for nearly 70 years, although largely in Polish or in Quine's less mainstream polemics. It provides a uniform way of dealing with plurals, a clear sense of what a "mass" is (or, at least, one important facet of that -- so it also provides some clues to what all is confused in that notion) and thus a better picture of the underlying Logic that Lojban is the language of. Some of these problems have been practical but many of them were theoretical or aesthetic -- no less problems for that. <<> > > > > > > > and b) that Lojban uses this pluralist > > view. > > > > > > Lojban belongs to its speakers. As long as > > some speakers use it, Lojban > > > can in a sense be said to use it, and some > > speakers do use it, I can vouch > > > for that. If most speakers decide they won't > > use it, it will perhaps be more > > > correct to say that Lojban doesn't use it. > > It's too early to tell at this point, > > > but if I had to bet, I'd vote on yes. > > > > The argument is about the official version of > > Lojban. This is why I > > make the distinction between "my version" and > > "the current/your > > version". If we go this route, then everyone is > > right based on how > > much support they supposedly have (even a > > single supporter seems to be > > enough), and not how reasonable or sensible > > their interpretations are. > > Well, everyone is right and also wrong. Lojban > doesn't use either view -- and can't as now > constituted. But either one could be added and > would automatically add the other as correct. > > > > > > > > Until you do this, you should not attempt > > to use > > > > this pluralist view in Lojban. > > > > > > Thanks for the advice. > > > > > > > I chose to bring the subject of my inner {ro}, > > and my {le} & {lo} up > > on the mailing list before I dived in and > > started using them. I don't > > think that it's unreasonable to ask you to do > > the same regarding your > > plural quantification, especially if I ask you > > to avoid using it > > within this discussion of ours.>> Sorry you missed the discussion of plural quantification and reference that went on a while back before xorxes started using them explicitly (actually, it is still hard to tell what is being used, since so little changes in Lojban as a result. We haven't tackled the hard stuff yet.) <<> > But you came in claiming that only your usage was > correct and have never supported even that it was > correct (it certainly is not how Lojban now works > and it seems to be based on an error about that) > let alone that only it is correct. At worst, > xorxes seems to have matched you point for point. What usage?>> That {le ro broda} meant reference to all the brodas ever and everywhen-where, and so generally for internal {ro}. At least that seems to have been the main point, lathough, buried now in a couple hundred messages, I may have missed something. <> Stronger than that. The established view is singularist and has a logic different from the one proposed. It is also a logic that makes Lojban's treatment of plurals awkward and often inadequate. Indeed, tthe "logical language" has to violate the accepted logic in a number of fairly basic cases. <> Well, it is not a predicate at all, so I don't get the point here. Is it that we allow plural terms to be predicated of? Yes. we do and that is a violation of standard logic, but not of "pluralist" logic. So, if you admit this case, you are on the way to seeing the need for the change. <> Again, predicates aren't singular or plural. Do you mean that you don't like the fact that the satisfiers of a predicate need not be things taken one by one but may be several things taken simultaneously? < > > > > 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. 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. But reading those definitions as a pluralist, they say exactly what the pluralist means when he says "the students together." No masses are mentioned, nor sets nor corporations nor ,,,,, just the tings themselves. <<> Then I fear that answers.com has missed > something. This seems a perfectly natural > locution. Yes, well, it seems that most English dictionaries have missed something. Either that, or you've introduced something that isn't there. My point was that xorxes should perhaps try to explain what he means by "together", because he clearly isn't using it in any sense that I (and the ever-authoritative dictionaries) understand the word to mean.>> As noted, to a pluralist he is using it in exactly the sense there presented. Once you become a true believer in a metaphysical position, everything conforms to -- and confirms -- your view. <<> > > > > I'm not being dense when I ask you these: I > > understand your position > > > > perfectly. You think that saying "the > > students" frees you from > > > > implying that they're a group. I recognize > > this, and I assert that > > > > it's incorrect. Avoiding the word > > "mass"/"crowd" when you say "the > > > > students" does not mean that "the students" > > does not refer to a group > > > > of students.. > > > > > > Because you assert it? > > > > > > > Because you offer no evidence to the contrary. > > I ask you what "the > > students" refers to, if not the students each, > > nor the mass of them. > > You offer no explanation. Here, I'll offer some > > rough explanations: > > > > "The 50 students (individually)" refers to each > > entity, that is, we > > have a set of 50 entities that are students in > > mind. > Well, insisting that it is a set from the get-go > prejudices the issue. If I were to have a > problem with where you are going, I would start > right here: we have no set in mind, just 50 > students. Set as in bunch.>> And bunch as in some one thing that does duty for the many, not bunch as a colloquial way to talk about several things at once. Its the "some one thing" that is the problem, regardless of what you call it. <<> > > 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. > > Well, this is a fine point, but not worth arguing > here. I'll assume you mean it in its most > particular sense. > > > > "Together the students" refers to the students > > as a collective entity.>> Not so, says the pluralist, it just refers to the students and refers to them collectively. I know that sounds just mumbo-jumbo to you, but it makes perfectly good sense to a pluralist. The Real Presence makes good sense to RCs and is mumbo-jumbo to Prezbies, and neither can prove the other wrong. <<> It does not obviously look that way; what is you > evidence for this claim? "The group of students" > is a more clear cut case of a collective entity > -- and even it is open to question. My evidence is the way in which every dictionary I've seen interprets "together". My proof is the insensibility and inability to explain or elaborate on any other perspective.>> Well, as noted, the dictionary "clearly" gives the pluralist meaning, which is the only sensible position as we have explained and elaborated ad nauseam. 'Tis -'Tain't. Draw. <<> > > 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". > > Sure, if you talk about forests then you talk > about forests, but there is no problem in taking > the small picture and commenting that so far 3542 > trees have burnt. Sure. Now how does the pluralist view, the "bunch-together" view, fit into this?>> Just that in order for a forest to burn, some percentage (typically "enough") of the teee have to burn and if they do, the forst burns. There is nothing else there than the tree, no forest over and above and separate from the tree. LIke "the average man, "forest" is just a shorthand way for talking about a lot of trees (and problably other things as well -- undergrowth, some critters ...) <<> > > 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/. > > Unfortunately, the response is to cite the same > expression and note that it does not have to mean > another object over and above the students. > I think you've confused two things. There is nothing "over and above" the students, and I never said that there had to be. There is, however, something that is composed of the students.>> Now you are really confusing me. There is something composed of the students but not over and above the students. It clearly is not a student and it is by your say-so not the students. So how is it not a new entity. This talk is, fo course, typical of mereological sums (L-sets, ...) and if that is really what you mean then you are already in the position (as I have assumed you are anyhow) of accepting the logic involved here, since it is jot and tittle the same as the pluralist logic. People just talk in odd ways about it (and I think both ways are odd). Of course, what you say is literally contradictory, so I am giving it the best light I can. If you mean something else, then we are in trouble. 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.