From lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRCGp8jeBBoEEDOw8Q@googlegroups.com Fri Apr 23 14:39:45 2010 Received: from mail-ww0-f61.google.com ([74.125.82.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O5Qb6-0006vb-69; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 14:39:45 -0700 Received: by wwb17 with SMTP id 17sf183226wwb.16 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 14:39:33 -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:mime-version:received:received :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from: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; bh=1/Ci05+HWY8zZcNrNm/7JgBDue1ZY49c1obgTMCPKRo=; b=ZlaXs2EBGr4s/2Y77SARmuV215Xwx5LQJl3eFStXX5ValJlxp0ravTvB5qC3BrImZr J7e2yuY1jxYncwT4qSAIa+X2kdtunZXSQQIm7jXWhZMJgFlW2Ykoel18C1Y8SEKe0EhY jzum4lwNyFRvfJB9YT5riUaT4L0i9B5NdWgAE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from: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; b=SFv4NAiTeA50aHYLEWQgoE5Hj0Q0/xMeT3k50x4XyzlTT53tzFuxoJUyL+rD1MQW5l dZG41O8ri0j6Bwh4KyX6RpzoLQVY8brTnYNNAFpMx7H7cDVLUcZq/OhM04v5tV+07Bw+ ILnNXv9LKpsnROWRYartuwCRs0bKMPHSw56t8= Received: by 10.223.60.210 with SMTP id q18mr244662fah.25.1272058758089; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 14:39:18 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.216.64.79 with SMTP id b57ls17340759wed.2.p; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 14:39:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.182.132 with SMTP id o4mr63495wem.26.1272058756717; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 14:39:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.182.132 with SMTP id o4mr63494wem.26.1272058756698; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 14:39:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qy0-f178.google.com (mail-qy0-f178.google.com [209.85.221.178]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id n31si1773964wbc.0.2010.04.23.14.39.15; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 14:39:15 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.221.178 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.221.178; Received: by mail-qy0-f178.google.com with SMTP id 8so13056478qyk.4 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 14:39:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.251.72 with SMTP id mr8mr817607qcb.30.1272058753654; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 14:39:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.79.75 with HTTP; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 14:39:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4BD1E52B.5040003@gmail.com> References: <6a2c862a-91f0-452e-9a31-0064620d5d06@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.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> <4BD1E52B.5040003@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 18:39:13 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] About plural 'ro' From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.221.178 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@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 On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 3:21 PM, And Rosta wrote: > > 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, > "ko'a broda" would be true only if it's true of the collectivity {A, B, C} > (where the criteria for being true of a collectivity will depend on the > particular semantics of broda). For me, it will be true if it's true of A, B, C, (where the criteria for being true of three things will depend on the particular semantics of broda). > For you, it would be true if it's true of > ABC, AB, AC, BC, A, B, C. No, just of A, B, C. Which is not to say true of A, true of B and true of C. It only needs to be true of A, B, C, where the criteria for being true of three things will depend on the particular semantics of broda. > For my method to get that reading, you'd have to > say "su'o subcollectivity of ko'a cu broda". You seem to be describing here "su'oi ko'a cu broda", not "ko'a broda". > Your questions & answers and my answers: > >> Is it necessary that each of the referents satisfy the predicate? No. > > me: Yes; since there is a single referent, it must satisfy the predicate. But the equivalent question asked of you would not be the identically phrased question, it would be: Is it necessary that each of the primitive subcollectivities satisfy the predicate? >> Is it necessary that they satisfy it all collectively? No. > > me: Yes, since 'collective' is the absence of quantification over > subcollectivities of the referent. OK. But then your "collective" is not quite what I meant by "collectively". I meant, is it necessary that all the referents broda together? For example, if it's about carrying a piano, is it necessary that they all carry it together? In your terms, is it necessary that all the members of the collective broda together? If it's about being a man, is it necessary that they are all a man together? In other words, I'm asking details about the criteria you mention above, and the answer will probably be: there is no general answer, we need to look at the specific predicate and the specific context. >> 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. Neither does "A, B, C broda" for me make any claims about A, or about B, or about C, or about AB, or about BC, or about AC (or about ABC to the extent that it may be different from A, B, C. The claim is about the three. That's why both of our answers would be "No, it's not necessary". (In particular cases, the criteria for evaluating the claim may involve looking at what happens with A, or with B, or with AB, etc, but there is no claim about anything other that A, B, C. mu'o mi'e xorxes -- 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@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.