From lojban-out@lojban.org Mon Jul 10 18:55:55 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 7999 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2006 01:36:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.166) by m32.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 Jul 2006 01:36:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Jul 2006 01:36:25 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G07Ab-0004P9-R6 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 18:36:14 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G0793-0004Lo-FA; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 18:34:38 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 10 Jul 2006 18:34:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G078b-0004LZ-SM for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 18:34:10 -0700 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.180]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G078a-0004LQ-SZ for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 18:34:09 -0700 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id x31so1025896pye for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 18:34:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.37.18 with SMTP id p18mr5879029pyj; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 18:34:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.39.7 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 18:34:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 19:34:07 -0600 In-Reply-To: <20060710213654.47581.qmail@web81309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060710213654.47581.qmail@web81309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) X-archive-position: 12088 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: maxim.katcharov@gmail.com X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:0:0:0 X-eGroups-From: "Maxim Katcharov" From: "Maxim Katcharov" Reply-To: maxim.katcharov@gmail.com Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=SGpfvfA3Ha3xmxirjU1DudSt-OD6AzzcfAmAbxIIgl-HvjlnrA X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 26516 On 7/10/06, John E Clifford wrote: > Boy I dropped this one too soon. This is all very clear and thus easily answered. Suppose in the > group surrounding the building there are some non-students and suppose further that, if all the > students were in their same places and these non-students were absent (and not replaced by > others), then the building would not be surrounded. In this case is {loi tadni cu sruri le > dinju}true? NO! Since the building was not surrounded but for the non-students, the students did > not surround the building *though they participated in the surrounding and may even have been the > main force in it -- and might even have been able to surround the building by moving to new > arrangements). > > So, is {loi tadni cu sruri le dinju} equivalent to {da poi sruri le dinju cu gunma lo tadni}? > Assuming that {gunma2) need not be a complete list of the members (whatever) of the mass (that {se > gunma} means "is a member of mass..." not "are all the members of mass...") then NO! again, ssince > the latter allows that others might be essentially involved. (I skip over xorxes' worries about > admitting that there are such things as masses; they make no detectable difference). The {loi} > form is apparently equivalent to {da poi srur le dinju cu gunma lo tadni po'o] however (much as I > hate sing {po'o}). Yes. My first June 11th message addressed this: < Sure. I'd be perfectly happy to say that loi tadni cu sruri lo dinju expands to [da poi sruri lo dinju] cu gunma [[lo tadni] po'o] for the purposes of this discussion, since really, the discussion isn't much affected by it. > This is beside the point of this discussion. In this discussion, I ask you to provide an explanation of how your plural predication /could/ work, using ideas that we all agree on. I've done it for my explanation of how things "could" work using gunma/mass/one-thing-that-is, and I'd like you to do the same for yours. Everything I've used to explain myself we can all agree on. Or perhaps you could tell me why you think that it what you offer is sufficient? It's as if we're two primitive people looking at a car. I say that it must be water and fire that moves it ("I hear water noises when we push it around, and smoke comes out the back when it moves"), and you say that it works through "the force of Dutablibi". That's appealing, but it would be a lot better if you told me how this all happens using things that we both agree 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.