From lojban-out@lojban.org Mon Jul 10 15:09:04 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 15551 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2006 21:53:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.67.33) by m29.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Jul 2006 21:53:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Jul 2006 21:53:49 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G03Ta-0008VI-ES for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:39:34 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G03RU-0008Tn-KH; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:37:25 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:37:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G03R2-0008TZ-NM for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:36:56 -0700 Received: from web81309.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.125]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G03R1-0008TR-G7 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:36:56 -0700 Received: (qmail 47583 invoked by uid 60001); 10 Jul 2006 21:36:54 -0000 Message-ID: <20060710213654.47581.qmail@web81309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.237.228.212] by web81309.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:36:54 PDT Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:36:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-archive-position: 12072 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=jD7zYGMaSbxSG54KJ7N06wFmfqQLRi_6tmblBXj3dL__7l7nVQ X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 26497 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}). --- 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. > > 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. Definitions define concepts, or > > explain how words are shortcuts for saying much longer things. If we > > were talking about the same thing in two different ways, then yes, but > > we aren't. And neither of us is saying that each other's definition of > > their own concept is wrong - in fact we usually mark things as "your > > X" or "my X". > > > > But we're not talking about definitions. I'm asking you to explain or > > define or (usefully) exemplify your *concept* itself. I know that > > certain words refer to your concept, but I want to know how they are > > explained using axioms - things that neither of us have to prove, > > things that nobody should really argue against. > > > > For example, both of us understand and agree with a 1to1 relationship: > > > > Alice is inside the school > > > > 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 > > > > 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 > > > > and both of us understand and agree with the use of 'variables' > > > > the stones are inside X > > X is on the table > > > > and we see how these can be combined > > > > the graphite is a component part of the pencil > > the pencil is on the table > > > > the graphite is a component part of X > > the X is on the table > > > > and so the explanation of my position is > > > > Alice is a component part of X > > X surrounds the building > > > > (where X could be~ "the surroundment of the building", or "surrounder...") > > > > Now, this doesn't prove that Alice actually *is* a component part, or > > that X *does* surround the building, but it shows that if we were to > > see it this way, then it would be perfectly workable. > > > > 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 > > > > but I would be taking this in on faith - it seems that this is > > correct, and that there is no mass, so hey, why not? > > > > > At this point your {loi tadni cu sruri le dinju} and my {loi tadni cu > > > sruri le dinju} are applicable in different situations. For example, in > > > a situation where students are on one side of the building and > > > professors are on the other side, in such a way that students > > > and professors surround the building together, you can say > > > that {loi tadni cu sruri le dinju} = "a group that includes students > > > surrounds the building", and I can't say {loi tadni cu sruri le dinju} > > > = "students surround the building". > > > > 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. > > > > However, your position is that it *doesn't* expand using gunma, since > > there is supposedly no concept of a mass invoked in one's mind when > > one says "the students surround the building". If there's no concept > > invoked, then it doesn't expand in that way. In the same way, {lo > > gerku} doesn't expand to {lo danlu} (though it's an acceptable way to > > see it) - though it may very well expand to something like {lo danlu > > be la dog} (or what have you). "That's" would not expand to "that is" > > if the concepts suggested by "that is" were not invoked. But if they > > were, it would, even if the 'method of invocation' was different. > > > > You treat this expansion like {lo gerku}>{lo danlu} - "you can see it > > that way, but that's not quite accurate". I treat it as "that's">"that > > is" - different words, but the very same concepts are used. > > Specifically, the concept of "mass/parts". > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > At the beginning of the discussion, I thought we both understood > > > what {loi tadni cu sruri le dinju} meant (more or less what it > > > has always meant in Lojban) and we were comparing > > > different ways of analyzing the sentence to get to that meaning. Now > > > it appears that we don't even understand the sentence to > > > mean the same thing. Comparing two ways of analyzing it as if > > > we thought it meant the same thing for both is pointless. > > > > > > 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.