From lojban-out@lojban.org Mon Jul 10 14:49:32 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 84812 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2006 21:46:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.67.35) by m29.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Jul 2006 21:46:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Jul 2006 21:46:18 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G03Zt-0000AJ-Po for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:46:05 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G03Yh-00008N-Df; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:44:52 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:44:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G03YG-00007j-Pl for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:44:24 -0700 Received: from web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.119]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G03YF-00007b-19 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:44:24 -0700 Received: (qmail 76825 invoked by uid 60001); 10 Jul 2006 21:44:22 -0000 Message-ID: <20060710214422.76823.qmail@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.237.228.212] by web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:44:22 PDT Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:44:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <925d17560607101342m3c51db12ue74262e2cbd58909@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-archive-position: 12073 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:0:0:0 X-eGroups-From: John E Clifford From: John E Clifford Reply-To: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=iFNkzD6aMhEpMXvdu8Bqq-5KkE2jVrr8tQ9qVKcvD-d56b__Ag X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 26496 --- Jorge Llamb�as wrote: > On 7/10/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > Has there been any progress on a response? My last message was both > > short and lucid; I imagine that the responding silence indicates > > concession, though I doubt that this is the case. > > It only indicates that I didn't see us getting anywhere. But let's pick up where > we left if you want. > > > > On 6/11/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > > On 6/11/06, Jorge Llamb�as wrote: > > > > On 6/11/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > I don't think you are a fool. > > > > > > > > Explanations are pointless at this point, because definitions cannot > > > > be right or wrong. We are now working with different definitions. > > > > > > I don't think that this is the issue. > > I think it is. In particular, we seem to have different understandings > of what "distributivity" means. Do you accept that some relationships > can be non-distributive in one ore more of their arguments? If you don't > agree, if you can only accept distributive relationships, then no matter > how much we argue, we won't get anywhere. > > > > > For example, both of us understand and agree with a 1to1 relationship: > > > > > > Alice is inside the school > > I wouldn't call that a 1to1 relationship. That for me is a predication. > The relationship in that predication is "...is inside of..." and it is not > necessarily 1to1. For example, there may be other people inside the > school, and Alice may be inside some other thing (a classroom, for > example) when she is inside the school. But that's probably irrelevant > to what we were discussing. > > > > and both of us understand and agree with the basic plurally > > > predicative relationship > > > > > > the 26 students are inside the school >> > > > Alice is inside the school > > > Bryce is inside the school > > > [...] > > > Zoe is inside the school > > We agree that "...is inside of..." can be distributive, yes. > > > > and both of us understand and agree with the "mass" relationship > > > > > > the graphite and the wood are component parts of the pencil >> > > > the graphite is a component part of the pencil > > > the wood is a component part of the pencil > > There is nothing new there. "...is a component part of..." is just as > distributive as "...is inside of...". Nothing especially "mass" about it. > It is not an example of a non-distributive relation. There is no > reason to call "...is a component part of..." a mass relationship. > > > > > I don't see your position as equally sensible. If I were to say "ok, > > > there's no mass involved", I would have nothing like this to rely on. > > > I would have > > > > > > Alice is a referent of X > > > X surround the building < axiomic explanation of this is needed > > As written, that doesn't make sense. If Alice is a referent of X, then > X has to be something like a word. But words don't surround buildings, > so X could not surround the building. > > What we want to say is > > Alice is one of X > X surround the building. > > where "X" is a plural variable, i.e. a variable with (possibly) more than one > referent, and where "...surround..." is a relation that can be non-distributive > with respect to its first argument (also with respect to the second, but that's > not relevant in this example). > > > > > > For me {loi tadni} means "students", just like {lo tadni}, and > > > > the mass gadri in addition indicates that whatever is predicated > > > > of the students is predicated non-distributively. For you it means > > > > "a group of things that includes students among its members", > > > > which is something quite different. > > > > > > If you'd like, it can be "an entity composed of students", it doesn't > > > really matter. And yes, this would be quite different, because it > > > treats the students together as a different entity than each of the > > > students themselves. > > Quite. You only accept referring to single entities, either to the single > entity that consists of all the students, or to each of the students at > a time. You won't admit a variable that has several referents, the students > themselves not a new entity consisting of the students, which is what > we need for plural predication. > > mu'o mi'e xorxes And it seems he does not allow even these single entities the full range of properties -- or he doesn't translate well between the two equivalent languages "Alice is one of X" = "Alice is a member of X" and so on. 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.