[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all}
On 6/3/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/3/06, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> No, "26 students" refers in both cases to 26 students and it is only used
> for that, in both cases to refer to those 26 students.
>
No, it *refers* to the 26 students in the same way (by your
reckoning), but it is *used* differently.
Its only use is to refer, in both cases.
It is absurd to suggest that
"26 students" is *used* in the exact same way in both "...surrounded
the building" and "...wore hats".
II don't see what's absurd about it.
In "...wore hats", it is used in a way that means that Alice herself wore a hat.
Yes, because "wore hats" is distributive.
In "...surrounded the building", it is used in a way that means Alice...?
...participated in the surrounding of the building, because "surrounded the
building" is collective.
The difference comes from the two different predicates, not from the referring
expression "26 students".
One answer is that she was a component of the mass that surrounded the
building - this is my answer.
I don't have an objection to that.
The other answer (that you offered) was that she was the referent of
the 26 students that surround the building.
She is _one of_ the referents, yes.
This doesn't explain
anything, because she's also a referent of the 26 students that wore
hats.
Of course, since "the 26 students" has the same referents in both
cases, if she is one of them in one case she is one of them in the
other.
There is no difference in the referring expression. The difference is in
the predicate.
mu'o mi'e xorxes