From lojban-out@lojban.org Mon Jul 10 12:16:33 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 83167 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2006 19:16:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.67.33) by m37.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Jul 2006 19:16:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Jul 2006 19:16:30 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G01BR-0006Hq-Ab for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 12:12:41 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G01A7-0006B9-AM; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 12:11:20 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 10 Jul 2006 12:11:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G019f-0006Ab-Lo for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 12:10:51 -0700 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.182]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G019e-0006AS-Fk for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 12:10:51 -0700 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id i49so1329553pyi for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 12:10:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.88.18 with SMTP id q18mr5381675pyl; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 12:10:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.39.7 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 12:10:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 13:10:47 -0600 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: -2.4 (--) X-archive-position: 12069 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=SU06tNHEAmF9QoK1sXKr8QPAEVTVR8jrt-0WKjQTmLx28Lz5pg X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 26492 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 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. 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. > > > > > 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.