From lojban-out@lojban.org Mon Jul 10 13:59:46 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 36901 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2006 20:45:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.172) by m30.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Jul 2006 20:45:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Jul 2006 20:45:01 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G02cO-0007bF-RU for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 13:44:37 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G02b6-0007Yu-TA; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 13:43:17 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 10 Jul 2006 13:43:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G02af-0007Yg-PG for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 13:42:49 -0700 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.182]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G02ae-0007YY-F8 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 13:42:49 -0700 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id i49so1354543pyi for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 13:42:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.135.12 with SMTP id m12mr5491360pyn; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 13:42:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.14.17 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 13:42:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560607101342m3c51db12ue74262e2cbd58909@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 17:42:14 -0300 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline References: <925d17560606090813o32d608e3pa4fef3f3190c0c4c@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560606100706j1b7f03bpb0a62b6ce99b613d@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560606110650o59bf82e9ye037061cea611f6a@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560606110816u3ee4a84cge837f004c771ac67@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-archive-position: 12071 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: -2.5 (--) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:0:0:0 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=JqAsld1jgNCz-LMWETA2inGs7Lur5DKcX3bnGSJ-8LTIWIepkA X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 26495 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 Llambías 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 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.