From lojban-out@lojban.org Thu Jun 01 17:48:09 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 58120 invoked from network); 2 Jun 2006 00:48:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.67.34) by m31.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Jun 2006 00:48:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Jun 2006 00:48:07 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Flxma-0003xd-54 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 17:44:56 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Flxkx-0003wZ-1I; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 17:43:15 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 01 Jun 2006 17:43:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FlxkT-0003wH-8Q for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 17:42:45 -0700 Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com ([64.233.162.201]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FlxkP-0003wA-F2 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 17:42:45 -0700 Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id 4so415925nzn for ; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 17:42:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.243.2 with SMTP id q2mr1078925qbh; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 17:42:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.65.237.19 with HTTP; Thu, 1 Jun 2006 17:42:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560606011742qd6ea6d1h9d95a01eba08c383@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 21:42:40 -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> <925d17560605300707y79d20b95nd621ac89c5e17215@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605310741g384f22b1k5b91aba8173006cd@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605311649w51e71fc5r26c9b71da03e94f3@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560606010658xf47ef5t42fd427c4d5cfbb9@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11706 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=IVw7uoK76I9t853soiXiKB0_J8lsj4gBgPwjgiyIQj5fJKgq9A X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 26126 On 6/1/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > The everyday sense of "set" is little more than "group". > > > In this sense "set", "mass" or > > "group" are interchangeable. > > I don't see how that follows. "This set of pencils costs ten dollars." That's the ordinary, everyday use of "set". It means that all the pencils together, not each one individually, cost ten dollars. I can't really think of an ordinary use in which "this set" means "each member of this set". > > lei ci vitke cu klama le zdani > > The three guests went into the house together. > > Alright, perhaps they were so drunk that they had to lean on each > other, and only through communal effort managed to topple into the > house. (Otherwise they didn't do it together, though they did do it at > the same time: "concurrently".) "The three guests went into the house together" is an ordinary English sentence, and it normally has no implications that they do it leaning on each other. We can also say "the group went into the house" and again there's no implication that they did it in any special way. But anyway, let's assume that the situation is as you describe it. > Though I wouldn't usually see people going in as that sort of mass, > even if they were drunk, so I would seldom say {lei ci vitke...} in > the first place. What about "the three people went into the house carrying a piano"? > > Now someone asks you: > > > > xo klama be le zdani cu se viska do > > How many goers-into-the-house did you see? > > Note that this question is a bit off. Usually one would ask "how many > guests came in?" and not "how many acts of going in did you see?" {xo klama} is not "how many acts of going?", that would be {xo nu klama}. {xo klama} is "how many goers?". > > (B) Three. (The three guests.) > > Yes, this would usually be my answer, since I'd seldom see people > going in "together"-as-in-{loi} in the first place. Well, at least we agree on what answer we would give, if not for the same motives. > > (C) Four. (The three guests and the mass of three guests.) > > If I saw them come in as a mass, I wouldn't think that they came in > individually, and vice-versa. So you agree that the same situation can be truthfully described as each of three people coming in, or as a group of three people coming in together, depending on how one thinks of it? > > le nanmu cu pamei bevri le pipno > > The men carried the piano singly. > > > > le nanmu cu romei bevri le pipno > > The men carried the piano "all-ly" (all together). > > > > le nanmu cu remei bevri le pipno > > The men carried the piano in pairs > > > > You could easily do the first two with your method, but the third one > > would be more complicated. > > There's still no problem. And I think that you want {loi}: > > {loi nanmu cu remei bevri le pipno} > "the mass of men pairishly carried the piano" / > "together the men pairishly carried the piano" > > This is not a problem because tanru have no fixed meaning. "Pairishly > carried" could mean that the mass was a pair. But the idea was that there were more than two men, let's say eight: le bi nanmu cu remei bevri le pipno The eight men carried the piano in pairs. It wasn't the eight together that carried it. > You'll find that being > explicit ("each of set A is in a group/mass with only one other of set > A such that that group lifts a piano") is just as verbose in your > method. More precision requires more verbosity, I agree. The question is, can you be non-verbose when you don't need the precision? > You should just use the abstractor {su'u} to accomplish this vague > "something to do with these students (i.e. groups of them)" thing that > you'd like {lo} to do. It's not something to do with the students, it's the very students that I refer to with {le tadni}. {lo su'u tadni} is not something that can surround buildings or carry pianos or wear hats. Not that I know what it is, but it's something along the lines of "studying", like {lo nu tadni}, {lo ka tadni}, or {lo du'u tadni}, not something along the lines of "students" like {lo tadni}, {loi tadni} or {le tadni}. > > > 13.1 "the students surround the building" > > > 13.2 "the students wear hats" > > > > > > In (1), what is the referent? "A surrounder of the building": "a mass > > > formed of students". > > > > Neither. "The students" does not have a single referent, it has many > > referents, namely student A, student B, student C, ... and student Z. > > No. The students do not surround the building individually, therefore > there are not 26 referents. {le tadni} has 26 referents. This is independent of what you then predicate about them. > There is only one "surrounder of the > building", and therefore there is only one referent. There are 26 people sorrounding the building. > In this case, > you're treating "the students" as a mass that surrounds the building. No, I am treating "surround the building" as a collective predicate and "the students" as a plural reference, i.e. one with many referents rather than one. > It doesn't matter that "the students" can potentially refer to either > a mass or some individuals (a set) in your view. It is the same people in both cases. It is not some people in one case and a different entity in the other case. > > > The two referents are not the same. You can't pretend that they're the > > > same for the sake of translating > > > > > > "the students surround the building and wear hats" > > > > > > verbatim into Lojban. > > > > In the pluralist version, it makes no sense of talking about the two referents, > > because there are fifty referents involved, not two. > > I should have said "two types of referents". One of them is the 50 > students (that wear hats), one of them is the mass of 50 students > (that surrounds the building). No, in both cases it is only the 50 students that get referred, nothing else. What differs is the kind of predication that you apply to them, a distributive predicate in one case "wear hats" and a non-distributive predicate in the other case "surround the building". But both predicates are predicated of the very same things, the fifty students, and nothing else. 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.