From lojban-out@lojban.org Mon Jul 10 18:32:01 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 94221 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2006 01:15:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.172) by m41.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 Jul 2006 01:15:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Jul 2006 01:15:14 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G06qC-00044M-ER for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 18:15:08 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G06oS-00042p-34; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 18:13:20 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 10 Jul 2006 18:13:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G06nz-00042S-4u for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 18:12:51 -0700 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.179]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G06nx-00042L-VJ for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 18:12:50 -0700 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id x31so1020044pye for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 18:12:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.63.2 with SMTP id q2mr5832460pyk; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 18:12:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.39.7 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 18:12:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 19:12:48 -0600 In-Reply-To: <925d17560607101342m3c51db12ue74262e2cbd58909@mail.gmail.com> 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: <925d17560606100706j1b7f03bpb0a62b6ce99b613d@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560606110650o59bf82e9ye037061cea611f6a@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560606110816u3ee4a84cge837f004c771ac67@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560607101342m3c51db12ue74262e2cbd58909@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) X-archive-position: 12085 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=t6tcAgjZFu1rVrGR4KaGQjS7htYxLmLNWeDAak65EGv9tKlM7g X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 26510 On 7/10/06, Jorge Llambías 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 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. This isn't a matter of definition, but a matter of a difference in understanding how this 'distributivity' works. Simple predication is understood by everyone, simple predication is how I understand your plural-predication to work at its core. You offer a different explanation, but because you don't show how it /could/ work, much less that it /is/ the way that it works, I have severe doubts about your position. > > > > > 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. The predicate of "Alice is inside the school" is "is inside the school". By referring to it as a relationship (which is what our sort of predication is, I think), I sought to avoid confusion. What I was getting at by predication/relationship was in fact "...is inside (of)...". In this example, the relationship /is/ 1to1. There is one Alice, and one school. There may be other things that Alice is within, but I don't think that 1to1 should imply that I mean exclusively 1to1, simply that in /that/ sentence, the relationship between two things is being specified. > > > > 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'm not talking about the distributivity of those examples. I'm talking about the semantic meaning of "is a component of". There is a reason to call "...is a component part of..." a mass relationship. That's what a "mass" relationship is. We're not talking about a "glob" or "amount" when we say "mass". We're talking about a certain thing that is composed of aggregate things. Or what does "mass" mean to you? > > > > > 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. This is the closest I can come to a sensible explanation of your view. This is the form of explanation that I'm looking for. So far, you've offered "it just is - in 'the students surround the building', isn't it clear that they do it non-distributively?", and that isn't an explanation. In that case it is clear to /me/ that they are component parts of a single mental entity that surrounds the building - and I've shown how the mechanics that we both agree on can allow for this (but not that this /is/ how things work). > > What we want to say is > > Alice is one of X > X surround the building. What do you mean by "one of"? That she is one of the students? > > where "X" is a plural variable, i.e. a variable with (possibly) more than one What's a plural variable? > referent, and where "...surround..." is a relation that can be non-distributive I point out that again, you're not offering any sort of explanation of 'non-distributive', you're simply assuming that it exists. > 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. > You say this as if there was something to admit to. You haven't provided an explanation, and my understanding works perfectly well without needing a special "plural referent", so I don't need to fall back on "hmm... well, this is the only option, so I guess it makes sense". 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.