[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, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
My argument here was that the burden of proof is on you to show that
a) this pluralist view exists
You can check that the pluralist view exists for example starting
here: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_quantification>
The "external links" at the bottom of the page are also interesting.
and is correct,
Whether the singularist or the pluralist view is the "correct" one is perhaps
an open question, there is debate about it among linguists, logicians
and philosophers. For us mere Lojbanists all that matters is whether it
can work, and so far it has proven itself quite well.
and b) that Lojban uses this pluralist view.
Lojban belongs to its speakers. As long as some speakers use it, Lojban
can in a sense be said to use it, and some speakers do use it, I can vouch
for that. If most speakers decide they won't use it, it will perhaps be more
correct to say that Lojban doesn't use it. It's too early to tell at this point,
but if I had to bet, I'd vote on yes.
Until you do this, you should not attempt to use
this pluralist view in Lojban.
Thanks for the advice.
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.)
...
The last one should be: "Yes, the students do it together."
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..
Because you assert it?
mu'o mi'e xorxes