From lojban+bncCNuStaWoDxCzysfeBBoEcd596Q@googlegroups.com Fri Apr 23 11:22:07 2010 Received: from mail-wy0-f189.google.com ([74.125.82.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O5NVq-0007z8-C1; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 11:22:06 -0700 Received: by wya21 with SMTP id 21sf923443wya.16 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 11:21:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:received:received:message-id:date :from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-original-authentication-results:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=hHQzqo2NpgeCTisAHnqVPauO9t8Y2A3jcmISMnxR+AE=; b=m+C1UfD7qzygUHRlZW8cYGRXnAh0rpFXVenx3f5R9uB7PS1iio280H08OTcxak7J4g 5JjFHvQa8xDyQ9Bg4LNdjvDxNHqXywgXB0xG8OzmPR+H00Mr0tJCDUxx7/X0CdwaWLWu 1vSiTMT0Qj3t+gLwCm5delS5DaHDavaDE9hgA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-original-authentication-results:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=3ARUux2nMlhSAP7Bl21hg8+pBaWGjK0bkdGh5JxLrANgzZYhIxaEqRtsRjD7ToMeVM XkynjdzHzS1dAlYpEXzZYXRPwFyFsVuzk3IPkVqNtIcKapYdtcNQjCMc8KcDhb/jpQ9v CNjFCcBCm/tWgcwVjTkW3+Xs928zGtfhbgOCk= Received: by 10.223.81.194 with SMTP id y2mr181949fak.29.1272046899410; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 11:21:39 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.216.64.79 with SMTP id b57ls16960836wed.2.p; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 11:21:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.88.140 with SMTP id a12mr41900wef.14.1272046897805; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 11:21:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.88.140 with SMTP id a12mr41899wef.14.1272046897783; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 11:21:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f41.google.com (mail-ww0-f41.google.com [74.125.82.41]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id h17si1588554wbh.5.2010.04.23.11.21.36; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 11:21:36 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.41 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.41; Received: by wwe15 with SMTP id 15so1039092wwe.0 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 11:21:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.85.135 with SMTP id u7mr621987wee.51.1272046893218; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 11:21:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.72] (87-194-76-9.bethere.co.uk [87.194.76.9]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r29sm661502wbv.21.2010.04.23.11.21.31 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 23 Apr 2010 11:21:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4BD1E52B.5040003@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 19:21:31 +0100 From: And Rosta User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] About plural 'ro' References: <6a2c862a-91f0-452e-9a31-0064620d5d06@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> <391970.26672.qm@web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <225049.90411.qm@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <734238.40743.qm@web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4BD060B7.5020903@gmail.com> <4BD0F4FE.8010106@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.41 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=and.rosta@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com X-Original-Sender: and.rosta@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jorge Llamb=EDas, On 23/04/2010 03:53: > On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 10:16 PM, And Rosta wrote: >> OK. But consider "The students are men and women", where you don't mean = to >> claim that anybody is both a man and a woman. I take that to mean "Each = of >> the predicates is-a-man and is-a-woman is predicated of some subcollecti= vity >> of the students". Likewise, your example is "Each of {wore red caps, >> surrounded the building} is predicated of some subcollectivity of the >> students". >=20 > If all the men are on the left and all the women on the right, we could s= ay: >=20 > lo tadni cu (zu'a) nanmu gi'e (ri'u) ninmu > "The students are (on the left) men and (on the right) women." >=20 > We don't need to actually say the spatial tense, and if they are all > mixed up in principle it would be the same, they are men wherever > there is a male student and women wherever there is a female student. Yes, I see how your conception of things handles this case. My point, which= I think you took, was that the conjoinability of distributive and nondistr= ibutive predicates evidences not the need to blur away the distributive/non= distributive distinction, as you had seemed to argue, but rather that incom= patible predicates can be conjoined. >> So the difficulty with Lojbanizing your English example doesn't really h= ave >> to do with problems with mixing 'collective' and 'distributive' predicat= es, >> and the solution is one that would also handle my example. >=20 > It may well be just to different ways of explaining the same thing. I > find plural reference intuitive, while the introduction of > intermediate collections only so that we can predicate singularly of > them less so. But if it ends up being the same, it's all well. I'm not sure yet if our conceptions are equivalent. Here's why I think they= might differ. Suppose the referent(s) of ko'a is/are {A, B, C}. For me, "k= o'a broda" would be true only if it's true of the collectivity {A, B, C} (w= here the criteria for being true of a collectivity will depend on the parti= cular semantics of broda). For you, it would be true if it's true of ABC, A= B, AC, BC, A, B, C. For my method to get that reading, you'd have to say "s= u'o subcollectivity of ko'a cu broda". >> To my way of >> thinking, the ro'oi one would involve quantifying over subcollectivities= of >> and the ro one would involve quantifying over primitive >> subcollectivities of (where primitive =3D a subcollectivy with n= o >> subcollectivity but itself). >=20 > OK. I think of plural quantification as quantification over numbers. > The plural existential quantifier is "some number of" and the plural > universal is "any number of". Maybe "number" is the least > ontologically charged noun one can use if a noun must be used. Yes (though "number" would be ripe for confusion if used pedagogically). >>> We know (or at least don't argue much about) how sumti such as ti, ta, >>> tu, mi, do, ri, ra, ko'a, di'u, etc. get their referents, which can be >>> one or many. >> It's not clear to me that the referent can be many (rather than being a >> collectivity, if that is different from being many). >=20 > A pluralist wouldn't say "the referent (of a given term) is many", > they would say "the referents (of a given term) are many". >=20 > The singularist would say "the referent (of a term) has many members" > (or "many subcollectivities"?) OK. =20 >>> But how does a sumti like "lo broda" get its referents? >>> >>> No matter how it gets them, we know that they must satisfy the broda >>> predicate, i.e. "lo broda cu broda". Is it necessary that each of the >>> referents satisfy the predicate? No. Is it necessary that they satisfy >>> it all collectively? No. Is it necessary that they satisfy it in >>> groups of seven? No. In groups of varying numbers? No, that's not >>> necessary either. All that is required is that its referents must >>> satisfy the predicate "broda", in whatever arrangement they do it, >>> i.e. "lo broda" =3D "zo'e noi ke'a broda", it is a sumti whose >>> referent(s) satisfy the predicate broda. >> OK. But it's plain to see how if there's only one referent then this is = all >> so much simpler. >=20 > Is it? How can you tell which collectivities are possible referents? > It seems to me you have to do the same work to explain, and in the end > collect all the referents into one collectivity. What's the > relationship between the referent or referents of "lo broda" and the > predicate "broda"? You say it brodas, I say they broda. Are we saying > anything different? Your questions & answers and my answers: > Is it necessary that each of the referents satisfy the predicate? No.=20 me: Yes; since there is a single referent, it must satisfy the predicate. > Is it necessary that they satisfy it all collectively? No.=20 me: Yes, since 'collective' is the absence of quantification over subcollec= tivities of the referent. > Instead of saying "is it necessary that each of the referents of 'lo > broda' satisfies the predicate 'broda'? No." you will say "is it > necessary that each primitive subcollectivity of the referent of 'lo > broda' satisfies the predicate? No.", and so on. I don't see it is > simpler. But for me, "{A,B,C} broda" makes no claims about subcollectivities. --And. --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.