Message-ID: <ec8285e60606110724n67d3f643tffb0fa6bc8db1b46@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 08:24:03 -0600
In-Reply-To: <ec8285e60606110711i35306013qe148450f32e19905@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <ec8285e60606051745m14262db1y249b81b34002bf9b@mail.gmail.com>
	 <ec8285e60606081612k25e190d7x9c45756c1748a16@mail.gmail.com>
	 <925d17560606090549k2275f466x7802ac6c9b6abfd3@mail.gmail.com>
	 <ec8285e60606090636t218f7d9aqe5b737d22c992ed9@mail.gmail.com>
	 <925d17560606090813o32d608e3pa4fef3f3190c0c4c@mail.gmail.com>
	 <ec8285e60606092022k5e4a1ce0p98e787af3ad32d1d@mail.gmail.com>
	 <925d17560606100706j1b7f03bpb0a62b6ce99b613d@mail.gmail.com>
	 <ec8285e60606110447n30d46039n33371b03807dcc78@mail.gmail.com>
	 <925d17560606110650o59bf82e9ye037061cea611f6a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <ec8285e60606110711i35306013qe148450f32e19905@mail.gmail.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: 4234
Lines: 143

On 6/11/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/11/06, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 6/11/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 6/10/06, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > An outermost quantifier is distributive,
> > > > an outermost mass-marker is non-distributive. It's that simple.
> > >
> > > No doubt it's a simple rule, but the question is if it's the proper
> > > way to describe how we communicate.
> >
> > It's a proper way to describe how I understand Lojban works.
> > That's all I can offer you.
> >
> > > > la .alis .e la betis = ro le re prenu
> > > > la .alis joi la betis = lei re prenu
> > > > la .alis jo'u la betis = le re prenu
> > >
> > > Are you offering these definitions as suggestions, or
> > > as explanations of how it really is?
> >
> > As explanations of how I understand them to work in Lojban.
>
> pagbu and gunma, based on the information (from CLL and the gismu
> list) that I provided, seemed to be the corresponding ideas. What are
> you basing your interpretations on?
>
> >
> > > So you would disagree that
> > >
> > >  loi tadni cu sruri lo dinju
> > >
> > > expands to
> > >
> > >  [da poi sruri lo dinju] cu gunma [lo tadni]
> > >
> > > which you had previously described as a legitimate interpretation,
> > > yes?
> >
> > Using your place structure for {gunma} with distributive x2, I
> > would disagree, yes. I agreed when I thought we were using
> > {gunma} with the same meaning.
>
> This is an expansion of non-distributivity. By its nature, one should
> assume that it doesn't use yet more non-distributivity to explain
> itself.
>
> >
> > > {loi tadni cu sruri lo skori} and {ro lo tadni cu
> > > sruri lo skori} are different in some way, yes?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > I'm asking you to explain the difference.
> >
> > I've already already done that. (And besides you understand
> > the difference perfectly well.)
>
> I understand *my* difference perfectly well. So far you've given me
> "differences" that apply to both distributive and non-distributive.
>
> The surest way to show that I'm a fool for asking this 30th time is to
> point me to an explanation that I haven't rightly shown to be
> unexplanatory.
>
> >
> > > Alice is part of X
> > > X surrounds the building
> > >
> > > Alice wears a hat
> > >
> > > Is the difference not apparent there?
> >
> > Yes. In the pluralist view one would say instead:
> >
> > Alice is one of X
> > X surround the building

Wow, I sure let that one slip by.

"one of" is *completely* different from "part of".

>
> In which case you'd no longer be using first order logic. Now, if the
> axiomic nature of first order logic is not available to you, then you
> should use something else. But you can't just say that your pluralist
> interpretation is axiomic itself, because it clearly isn't.
>
> And what's the difference between that and
>
> Alice is one of X
> X wear the hats
>
> Clearly, Alice does not relate in the same way to the wearing of hats
> as she does to the surroundment of the building, but you seem to gloss
> over this *critically* important point. What's the difference between:
>
> Alice is one of X
> X surround the rope
> (e.g. they're standing around a rope)

Difference is:

Alice is one of X
X are parts of Y (single thing)
Y surrounds the rope

>
> and
>
> Alice is one of X
> X surround the rope
> (e.g. they're playing tug-of-war)

and

Alice is one of X
X each surround the rope

>
> >
> > In the singularist approach, X is a single thing, distinct from the
> > things that surround the building and consisting of them, while
> > in the plural approach X are many things, just those very things
> > that surround the building.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
>


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.