From lojban+bncCNuStaWoDxCpocruBBoEewjMkQ@googlegroups.com Tue May 17 08:14:00 2011 Received: from mail-wy0-f189.google.com ([74.125.82.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QMLy8-00052Y-SH; Tue, 17 May 2011 08:14:00 -0700 Received: by wya21 with SMTP id 21sf941661wya.16 for ; Tue, 17 May 2011 08:13:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:x-beenthere:received-spf:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post :list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pvYBbN7zoS/JX86/jJa2UDPk+FeFzR8Bu3Cg4MUgAsM=; b=pjSbZBUsVa0A3wSbt5jOzJhz8rppeFBcupVnq2OMZYfV6nOkjKkgSwoZT0a4vNyK6v f7GKazRu6aq5ItCGOaXGit2CDkj6f7MRSoHwlj1idnTaxZ+6HvNTg5lpw5+OOqMFN/3j w2ywmpm00Jytknhohrw9HUx6tiRuU01ZepNr4= 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-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=Z5QjAcUn5iuflu/Djuj+jPOsrYjvbJqQveaQFsgTfbGK+6bUkrnRsQMtShLwmHUf5/ OsrAd7dq8hHzqAMaKUdmxfBQN6dYzLKreCaLK+ginqF2euLaQ+k6RlqkRlnrYZXomzk9 SndC8UQkmKSFwqj5nesHTUBo4PPqUZqclESpk= Received: by 10.216.236.95 with SMTP id v73mr210626weq.17.1305645225603; Tue, 17 May 2011 08:13:45 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.227.95.10 with SMTP id b10ls2195643wbn.3.gmail; Tue, 17 May 2011 08:13:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.29.144 with SMTP id q16mr51929wbc.13.1305645224194; Tue, 17 May 2011 08:13:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.29.144 with SMTP id q16mr51928wbc.13.1305645224158; Tue, 17 May 2011 08:13:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f170.google.com (mail-wy0-f170.google.com [74.125.82.170]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g17si176349wbe.7.2011.05.17.08.13.44 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 17 May 2011 08:13:44 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.170 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.170; Received: by wyb34 with SMTP id 34so958816wyb.1 for ; Tue, 17 May 2011 08:13:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.9.131 with SMTP id l3mr795667wbl.54.1305645223834; Tue, 17 May 2011 08:13:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [80.192.144.173] (cpc2-pres4-0-0-cust172.pres.cable.virginmedia.com [80.192.144.173]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id bo14sm392938wbb.28.2011.05.17.08.13.42 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 17 May 2011 08:13:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4DD290A5.7080801@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 16:13:41 +0100 From: And Rosta User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Masses References: <340069.36890.qm@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <406208.54874.qm@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4DD277B1.3090503@gmail.com> <1052.65956.qm@web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <1052.65956.qm@web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Original-Sender: and.rosta@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.170 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=and.rosta@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 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 Yes, there is this question that you raise, which might be answered by phil= osophers of mereology or by the wisdom of lojban-speaking crowds. But the s= pecification of Lojban shouldn't rely on the question having been answered.= To give another example, the Lojban specification points from {gerku} to t= he encyclopedia entry for dogs, but Lojban doesn't have to be responsible f= or stating the content of that encyolopedia entry (which is rather a job fo= r zoologists, or folk crowds). --And. John E Clifford, On 17/05/2011 15:58: > Hmmm! This seems to be part and parcel of the issue of who all gets the = credit > or blame. To take the team example again, when the team wins (or loses),= does > that include the manager, the bat boy, the groundskeeper, etc.? Since ma= nagers > regularly get credit or blame, they seem to be part of the teams, yet the= re is > an obvious sense in which they are not (usually). xorxes wants armies to= be > more than soldiers, to include in materiel, soldiers' tools -- are these > different meanings of "army" or different restrictions on what to count i= n when > making a particular claim? And does it make a difference? I think (on f= irst or > early second thought) that it does: there has to be some limit on what {l= o > broda} allows in, else we can have lo broda consisting of many things tha= t are > not broda and only one that is. This seems to make it essentially le bro= da and > deny veridicality, the distinguishing mark of {lo} constructions. > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: And Rosta > To: lojban@googlegroups.com > Sent: Tue, May 17, 2011 8:27:13 AM > Subject: Re: [lojban] Masses > > Jorge Llamb=EDas, On 15/05/2011 22:00: >> On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 5:33 PM, John E Clifford = wrote: >>> >>> Since the distributive sense can always be expressed by the use >>> of external quantifiers, there was no need for a special form for that.= So > the >>> unquantified form could be used for the collective sense. However, it = was >>> thought (and practice shows this was a correct thought), that there was= also >>> needed a neutral expression, unmarked for either collective or distribu= tive. >> >> Also, if "collective" means "all together" and "distributive" means >> "one by one" or "individually", there are a lot of other options in >> between: in pairs, in threes, some in pairs and some individually, and >> so on. "All together" and "one by one" are just the two extremes. If >> we only have forms for the extremes we are left with no form for all >> the intermediate cases, and if we do have a form that doesn't >> distinguish between all the intermediate possibilities there is no >> reason to exclude one of the extremes from that neutral form. > > This is a good point, but if you agree that "the team" is subject to same= range > of interpretations on the collective--distributive scale as "the team mem= bers" > is (e.g. "the team each have red hair"), then I think the appropriate con= clusion > is (a) that when an individual is construed as a collectivity it may rece= ive > wholly or partly distributive readings (quantifying over members or subse= ts of > the collectivity), and (b) individual-construable-as-collectivity is the = default > (most underspecified) interpretation. > > To try to state essentially the same point in a completely different way:= just > as brodeing holds of the referentage of "lo broda" to any degree on the > coll--dist scale, so does "brodaing". On the plural reference model, "lo = broda" > has many referents, and it needn't be the case that each is brode; my poi= nt it > that it also needn't be the case that each is broda. > > I'm not sure if you already agree with this point. > > --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.