Message-ID: <925d17560606061657m6d37f4c9ua9d1e1bea06bfed@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 20:57:19 -0300
In-Reply-To: <ec8285e60606061451m6650690cwdeb597a0cb977c49@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <ec8285e60605291304v45451258odea17de2ff9983e2@mail.gmail.com>	 <ec8285e60606031845k6116e862we952a3eea3f66f75@mail.gmail.com>	 <925d17560606031924x522d0655kb30e8441b87adda9@mail.gmail.com>	 <ec8285e60606031956r322f189cl9ea9d2feacb3550e@mail.gmail.com>	 <925d17560606040609q49d2bf69k342f69bb9103fa3@mail.gmail.com>	 <ec8285e60606041018t6686d2e0x8c915ba3ef95917d@mail.gmail.com>	 <925d17560606050934r7fb6d767k3b89e08fa6bf94dc@mail.gmail.com>	 <ec8285e60606051615r5cb6145bq351e7f5233596532@mail.gmail.com>	 <925d17560606060653u79e6ade9l88b76a66c7efb41a@mail.gmail.com>	 <ec8285e60606061451m6650690cwdeb597a0cb977c49@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" <lojban-out@lojban.org>
Reply-To: jjllambias@gmail.com
Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all}
Content-Length: 2722
Lines: 68

On 6/6/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So a second {lo} has no outer quantifier?

Neither a second {lo} nor a first {lo}, no, nor any other gadri, nor any
other sumti. There are never any hidden outer quantifiers from my
point of view.

> > {le tadni} always refers the same things, but the slot it fills could be
> > marked as distributive or non-distributive, yes.
>
> No, not marked. We've been through this. Slots are not marked for anything.

We'll just have to agree to disagree about that then.

> >  la alis me pa le tadni poi ge ro ke'a dasni lo mapku gi lu'o ke'a
> > sruri le dinju
> >  "Alice is one of the students which each wear a hat and together surround
> >  the building".
>
> Ok, then what, if not a mass, are you using to describe the
> relationship? You don't say the word {gunma}, but it's still a mass -
> unless you can describe some other thing, like "bunch-together" (which
> you havn't been able to make at all distinct from "mass").

No other thing besides the students themselves is needed for me.

{le tadni cu ckaji ge lo ka ro ke'a dasni lo mapku gi lo ka lu'o ke'a
sruri le dinju}

"The students (and I'm not talking about anything but the students here) have
the property that (1) they wear hats individually and (2) they surround the
building together."

It's the very same students that have both properties.

> > > > (1) Each boy took one chair.
> > > > (2) Five boys took one chair each, one boy took two chairs, and the three
> > > >      remaining boys took the last chair (a very heavy one perhaps).
> > >
> > > It's enough to say that the group of boys took the group of chairs,
> > > because it'll probably be your choice to see it in that way
> > > (regardless of how who did what). If you want to be explicit about it,
> > > you can just write it out in Lojban as you did here in English.
> >
> > Indeed, that's my point.
>
> Your pluralist method isn't needed to handle this.

If we are both happy with {le nanla cu bevri le stizu le purdi} to describe
a situation where the boys took the chairs to the garden but we don't
care whether each boy took one chair or they took chairs in some other
different distribution, then it doesn't really matter how we analyze the
sentence. We'd have a problem if one admitted the sentence and the
other didn't. I thought you didn't accept that one expression could cover
all those different situations, but if you do, we have nothing substantial
to argue about.

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.