[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:
>
> 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.


I don't argue that people don't support it, I argue that it has no
distinct existance aside from "mass", and so is not correct.

> 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.

It seems to be a niche theory that hasn't recieved much mainstream publicity:

http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22plural+quantification%22
http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22plural+predication%22

1000 and 400 results respectively.

However, this steers the discussion away: you seem to be saying "I
don't have to answer your objections nor offer explanations because
that's the job of other people. If they can't do it, then I don't see
why we should bother. Therefore my position is as correct as yours,
regardless of the arguments you offer to the contrary, at least until
those other people come up with a solution."

If you take on a position, you should be prepared to defend it just as
well as any other person. If you can't present explanations and
arguments for the position yourself, then why do you support it?
Because it was written in a book, and because you need it to be true
in order to support your position in this argument of ours? Answer
this honestly.


> 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.

The argument is about the official version of Lojban. This is why I
make the distinction between "my version" and "the current/your
version". If we go this route, then everyone is right based on how
much support they supposedly have (even a single supporter seems to be
enough), and not how reasonable or sensible their interpretations are.


> Until you do this, you should not attempt to use
> this pluralist view in Lojban.

Thanks for the advice.


I chose to bring the subject of my inner {ro}, and my {le} & {lo} up
on the mailing list before I dived in and started using them. I don't
think that it's unreasonable to ask you to do the same regarding your
plural quantification, especially if I ask you to avoid using it
within this discussion of ours.

> 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."


Your definition of "together" seems very strange. No definition described at

http://www.answers.com/together?ff=1

seems to cover it, rather, they indicate that "together" is used to
describe masses of things, or reciprocal relationships.

> 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?


Because you offer no evidence to the contrary. I ask you what "the
students" refers to, if not the students each, nor the mass of them.
You offer no explanation. Here, I'll offer some rough explanations:

"The 50 students (individually)" refers to each entity, that is, we
have a set of 50 entities that are students in mind. If we say that
"the students run", we mean that it is true that each student of this
set of 50 runs. If any of the students do not run, the statement is
false.

"Together the students" refers to the students as a collective entity.
Sometimes, this collective entity can be seen as a "crowd" or a "mob".
When people look at groups of people, they never have trouble
recognizing that this amalgamation is an entity on its own - that is,
they see a forest, and not 10000 trees, they see a book, and not 500
pages. "The forest is burning", and not "3542 trees are burning". So
when we say "together the students surround the building", we mean
this thing that is a mass of students surrounds the building.

Can you offer something similar? It can be as crude as you'd like to
start, I just want /something/.