[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all}
On 5/31/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/31/06, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/30/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > They must be arranged in a certain way whereby they form a surrounder
> > of the building.
>
> Indeed, that's what the predicate claims.
I hope that you read my sentence well before responding.
Yes, the predicate "x1 (many things) form x2 (one thing)" relates many
things to one thing. {lo so'i tadni cu se gunma lo pa gunma}.
"The many students form one group, a group which surrounds the building."
or:
"The many students surrround the building."
Both are valid ways of describing the same situation, either by referring to a
group, formed by the students, such that the single group surrounds the
building, or by referring directly to the students and saying that _they_
(not some single _it_) surround the building. One way does not invalidate
the other.
> That is a perfectly fine way of looking at it, and I have never disputed
> that. What I have disputed is your claim that it is the *only* possible
> or sensible way of looking at it.
You seem to have something against seeing the students as a mass,
otherwise you wouldn't be arguing for a position that doesn't
"mention" mass.
No, I have nothing at all against seeing students as a mass. I'm perfectly
fine with it, as I said many times already. I am also fine with, and I think
in some circumstances it is more useful, the other view whereby
the mass is not referred to. One view does not preclude the other.
I take that to mean that when saying "the students surround the
building" you assert that you make no reference to any mass, yes?
Correct, that's the pluralist take.
You do not go around waving a red banner stating "composite entity!",
but they form a composite entity regardless:
They must be arranged in a certain way whereby they form a surrounder
of the building.
the mass is "a surrounder of the building". And it is treated *as a mass*.
They can be treated as a mass surrounding the building, yes, but they (the
same "they") are also wearing hats, and they can't be treated as a mass
wearing a hat.
"The students" could mean either something that /is/ a set
(individually), or /is/ a mass. In "the students surround the
building", it is predicated as a mass.
I'm not sure what you mean by saying that "the students" could mean
something that is a set. It could not. No individual student is a set and
the students together are not a set either. The students can be _members_
of a set. The students together could eventually be taken to "be" a mass
or a group, but they can't be taken to be a mathematical set.
> else is predicated of its referents. You don't need to know what the
> predicate will be in order to identify the referents of "the students".
Tell me then, does "the students" refer to a composite entity composed
of students, or a group/set of students? If neither, please describe
what is referenced.
"The students" refers to the students themselves. I don't know how better
to describe the students than as "the students". There is no single entity
being referred to under the pluralist interpretation.
> > What is the distinction between doing things together and doing things
> > in groups?
>
> I think "together" suggests "in a single group".
>
> The guests arrived together. (They all arrived at the same time.)
> The guests arrived in groups. (None arrived alone.)
Then the "groups" variant is beside the point of our discussion, no?
It is also covered by plural reference. We not only have the two extreme
cases (all together in one group, or each individually by itself), but by
moving the distributivity indication to the predicate (where I think it
belongs) we can also cover intermediate cases like "in groups of three
or four".
So:
le vitke cu pamei tolcliva
The guests arrived singly.
le vitke cu romei tolcliva
The guests arrived "all-ly" (all together).
le vitke cu remei tolcliva
The guests arrived in pairs.
You could easily do the first two with your method, but the third one
would be more complicated.
> "The students surrounded the pole" covers any of these situations:
>
> The students surrounded the pole one at a time.
individually.
> The students surrounded the pole in groups of three.
individually, groups of three students surrounded the pole, sure.
...
> The students surrounded the pole five times each, in varying groups of four.
> The students surrounded the pole taking turns for five minutes.
> The students surrounded the pole for two hours.
> The students surrounded the pole first together and then in pairs.
> etc.
> etc.
>
> They are all covered by "the students surrounded the pole".
>
Ok, now tell me which one is the pluralist view.
The pluralist view is that "the students surrounded the pole" covers
them all.
They all seem like
very nice examples of either the students as a mass, or as
individuals, or groups of students as individuals.
Including "the students surrounded the pole"?
But consider for example "the students surrounded the pole for two
hours". Does it say that each of them did it individually for two hours,
that they took turns so that they covered two hours among them, that
they were all sorrounding it for two hours, that they sorrounded it in turns
and in groups for two hours, that...? Doesn't it cover all those
possibilities and more?
mu'o mi'e xorxes