Message-ID: <ec8285e60606051745m14262db1y249b81b34002bf9b@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 18:45:31 -0600
In-Reply-To: <20060605195840.69527.qmail@web81311.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <ec8285e60605291435l54ea84d0jb6c449be987f588d@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20060605195840.69527.qmail@web81311.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
From: "Maxim Katcharov" <lojban-out@lojban.org>
Reply-To: maxim.katcharov@gmail.com
Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all}
Content-Length: 11054
Lines: 329

On 6/5/06, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
> --- Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 5/29/06, Jorge Llambías
> > <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 5/29/06, Maxim Katcharov
> > <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> 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. 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.

> 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".

>  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.
> >
> > >
> > > > 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 thye mare 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?

> 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 srtarts 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.

>
> > >
> > > > Then what surrounds the building? Please
> > give an explanation,
> > > > hopefully a detailed one, as opposed to a
> > vague 2-word answer.
> > >
> > > I'm afraid nothing further I might add will
> > change your mind. Luckily
> >
> > Why are you using the word "further" here? The
> > only thing you've done
> > to change my mind is answer "the students" when
> > I ask "what does 'the
> > students' refer to?".
>
> But that is a completely adequate answer.  If you
> don't see that, then it is unlikely that anything
> else will work either.  I would be inclined to
> have said that none of this matters, but that is
> not going to be a point that works 200 some
> entries into the discussion.

No, it's not an adequate answer. When you ask me about my position,
"what does 'together the students' refer to?", or "what does 'the
students (individually) refer to?", I can, and have, given answers
that were much more elaborate than "together the students" (aka
"mass") and "the students (individually)" (aka "bunch-individually"),
respectively (though the answers were still a bit crude). I could
potentially write pages of explanations of the differences between the
two. Not so with "bunch-together". The best that can be done with that
one is to call it by different names.

>
>
> > > for you, and for anyone else who prefers the
> > singularist view, nothing
> > > in Lojban prevents you from putting that view
> > into practice. If you are
> > > consistent with your view you simply won't
> > apply a distributive and a
> > > non-distributive predicate to the same sumti,
> > you will always have
> > > to split your bridis in two in such cases.
> > This may make some things
> > > more cumbersome to express, and I see nothing
> > gained by it, but it's
> > > always doable.
> >
> > Please show (a) and (b) before attempting to
> > use your pluralist view
> > in Lojban. Until you do, you should use the
> > singularist view.
>
> As noted, Lojban's adherence to the singularist
> view in detail is as open to exception as a
> pluralist view -- Lojban can't express either one
>  in any thorough way.
>
> > > > This brings us right back to:
> > > >
> > > > 2) You can't use {lo danlu cu bajra gi'e
> > blabi} to refer to a white
> > > > dog and running cats,
> > >
> > > Right, because the animals that are running
> > are not the same animals
> > > that are white. In the case of the students,
> > the people that are wearing the
> > > hats are the same people that are surrounding
> > the building. If they were
> > > not the same people you could not use one
> > sumti for both predications.
> >
> > You're switching the meaning of "the students"
> > in mid-sentence. The
> > thing that surrounds the building is one thing.
>
> I wonder if this is really defensible.  If you
> ask someone how many things are surrounding the
> building, I expect that the answer "Fifty
> students" will be more frequent than "One group
> 0of students." "A bunch of students" is also very
> likely, but flat ambiguous, if you think
> singularist and pluralist are really different.

If I ask someone what surrounds the building, they'll answer "a bunch
of students" or "a group of students". "Bunch" will be used in the
sense of "group", and not in the sense that we've defined it for the
purposes of this conversation. I will less frequently get the answer
"fifty students", because it's seldom that people miss the forest for
the trees, or in this case the crowd for each student, and when I do
receive that answer, it'll be in the sense of "fifty students
together".

>
> > The thing(s) that wear
> > hats are each something different. One thing
> > being composed of others
> > does not mean that it is the same as each
> > component part.
>
> And no one said it was.
>
> > I am composed of my organs. When I run, my
> > organs do not run. My
> > organs together (i.e. my body) runs.
>
> Even that is open to some question; bodires tend
> to be -- for purposes like running -- more than
> the sum of their parts (well, at least different
> from).

Right. They aren't a mathematical set, they're a mass.

>
> > >
> > > > and so you can't use {[L_ muno tadni] cu
> > [dasni
> > > > lo mapku] gi'e [sruri le dinju]} to refer
> > to a number of students and
> > > > to a mass composed of students.
> > >
> > > Right, because the mass is not the students,
> > so if you only allow singular
> > > reference, you can refer either to the one
> > mass of students or to each
> > > one student individually.
>
> But, of course, you can predicate of that mass
> distributively (or could if the language
> allowed).

What do you mean? Once you've made a mass, it's difficult to split it up.

>
> > > But if you allow plural reference, then it is
> > the very same students who
> > > wear the hats and surround the building. In
> > this case, the two predicates
> > > are predicated of the _same_ referents, and
> > so you can use one sumti to
> > > refer to them.
> >
> > 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.)
>
> Yes, the students together, not that is anything
> other than the students; it is just a way that
> are predicated of
> >
> > 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..
>
> Well, actually it does. At least it allows it.
>

It does does not refer? What do you mean?


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.