From lojban-out@lojban.org Fri Jun 09 08:19:42 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 48767 invoked from network); 9 Jun 2006 15:19:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.67.33) by m24.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Jun 2006 15:19:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Jun 2006 15:19:41 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FoihM-0003wA-EN for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 09 Jun 2006 08:14:56 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FoigJ-0003uo-Po; Fri, 09 Jun 2006 08:13:52 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 09 Jun 2006 08:13:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Foifs-0003uL-MA for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 09 Jun 2006 08:13:24 -0700 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.232]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Foifq-0003uB-EZ for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 09 Jun 2006 08:13:24 -0700 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i5so872296wra for ; Fri, 09 Jun 2006 08:13:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.112.8 with SMTP id k8mr2995749qbc; Fri, 09 Jun 2006 08:13:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.65.237.19 with HTTP; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 08:13:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560606090813o32d608e3pa4fef3f3190c0c4c@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 12:13:20 -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: <925d17560606071637u1dfabac7n6e3551086a616f58@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560606080643r55da8773gd4fad0bdac0c505a@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560606080832j516fc7c9g7783a394f3d1074a@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560606090549k2275f466x7802ac6c9b6abfd3@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11773 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: 2:3:4:0 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=Ajwx1AgdnkSm2rllvm0vNRwKN-c0TDf5yblP0wSmDnmnNNwoBA X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 26194 On 6/9/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > For > example, I think that the following is grammatical under your rules, > but I find the interpretation infeasible (or awkward), since it uses > both "markers": > > lu'o ro lo tadni cu sruri lo dinju For me that's equivalent to {lu'o lo ro lo tadni} and it marks the slot that the sumti fills as non-distributive. It is only the outermost marker that concerns the distributivity of the slot. > > But now the disagreement seems to occur at an earlier step. > > We no longer seem to agree about the meaning of (1). For example, > > if there is a chain of rocks around the building, with a gap filled by > > Alice, who is a student, you would say that (1) is true and I would > > say it is false. > > loi rokci cu sruri le dinju > > What would you say of that, assuming that the surroundment wouldn't > work if Alice wasn't there? Would it, too, be false? Right. It is not the case that rocks surround the building. > As I've said, this is an issue of pragmatics. The speaker would likely > say "[the rocks and Alice] surrounded the building" in the first > place. Yes: {lo rokci joi la alis cu sruri le dinju}. But apparently under your current interpretation, from that it follows that {loi rokci cu sruri le dinju} and also that {lu'o la alis cu sruri le dinju} (= {lai alis cu sruri le dinju}?). But neither of those follow at all, the way I understand it. > > For me it is false because it is not the case that > > students surround the building in that case. For you it is true because > > it is the case that a group of things that includes at least one student > > surrounds the building. > > > > Do we at least agree on what we disagree about? > > I think so OK, it is a definitional matter then. You may want to argue for your proposed definition, proposed as a change, but I don't think you can just assert that it is the one that Lojban currently has or ever had. (And this new argument is independent of the one we were having previously, on whether or not the distributivity marker should be obligatory or not.) 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.