[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all}
On 5/29/06, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/29/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Avoiding the word "mass"/"crowd" when you say "the students" does not
> mean that "the students" does not refer to a group of students. It
> does.
That's the singularist view, yes. But it is not the only possible view.
Ok, then please show an alternate view. You've flatly asserted that
one exists, yet when I ask you to explain it, a vague two-word answer
("the students") with no explanation or demonstrative examples is all
I get.
I doubt that you'll be left anything to explain your position with
once you start explaining. The pluralist view relies on not looking
too deeply at what "the students" means, because once you do you see
that it's either a mass, or the students individually.
> Show me how and what "the students" refers to.
In the pluralist view, it does not refer to one thing. It refers to
many things,
i.e. the many students.
Ok, then when I say "group of students", I too am "referring to many things".
Avoiding the word "mass"/"crowd" when you say "the students" does not
mean that "the students" does not refer to a group of students. It
does.
"[The [many students]]" refers to a group of students.
> Additionally, I don't think that Lojban uses this mistaken concept of
> "plural predication": it seems that the book that describes it has not
> been published yet, and so Lojban predates it by about 20 years.
That may be true. Is your argument then that conservatism requires
that we stick with the singularist view? (CLL does concede that pronouns
at least can refer to "individuals" or "masses" depending on context,
so even there one can find, at least in embryonic form, the pluralist view.)
My argument here was that the burden of proof is on you to show that
a) this pluralist view exists and is correct, and b) that Lojban uses
this pluralist view. Until you do this, you should not attempt to use
this pluralist view in Lojban.
> Then what surrounds the building? Please give an explanation,
> hopefully a detailed one, as opposed to a vague 2-word answer.
I'm afraid nothing further I might add will change your mind. Luckily
Why are you using the word "further" here? The only thing you've done
to change my mind is answer "the students" when I ask "what does 'the
students' refer to?".
for you, and for anyone else who prefers the singularist view, nothing
in Lojban prevents you from putting that view into practice. If you are
consistent with your view you simply won't apply a distributive and a
non-distributive predicate to the same sumti, you will always have
to split your bridis in two in such cases. This may make some things
more cumbersome to express, and I see nothing gained by it, but it's
always doable.
Please show (a) and (b) before attempting to use your pluralist view
in Lojban. Until you do, you should use the singularist view.
> This brings us right back to:
>
> 2) You can't use {lo danlu cu bajra gi'e blabi} to refer to a white
> dog and running cats,
Right, because the animals that are running are not the same animals
that are white. In the case of the students, the people that are wearing the
hats are the same people that are surrounding the building. If they were
not the same people you could not use one sumti for both predications.
You're switching the meaning of "the students" in mid-sentence. The
thing that surrounds the building is one thing. The thing(s) that wear
hats are each something different. One thing being composed of others
does not mean that it is the same as each component part.
I am composed of my organs. When I run, my organs do not run. My
organs together (i.e. my body) runs.
> and so you can't use {[L_ muno tadni] cu [dasni
> lo mapku] gi'e [sruri le dinju]} to refer to a number of students and
> to a mass composed of students.
Right, because the mass is not the students, so if you only allow singular
reference, you can refer either to the one mass of students or to each
one student individually.
But if you allow plural reference, then it is the very same students who
wear the hats and surround the building. In this case, the two predicates
are predicated of the _same_ referents, and so you can use one sumti to
refer to them.
What surrounds the building?
(The students.)
Does each student surround the building?
(No.)
Then what is it that surrounds the building?
(The students.)
So you mean the students together?
(No, the students.)
...
I'm not being dense when I ask you these: I understand your position
perfectly. You think that saying "the students" frees you from
implying that they're a group. I recognize this, and I assert that
it's incorrect. Avoiding the word "mass"/"crowd" when you say "the
students" does not mean that "the students" does not refer to a group
of students..