Re: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all}

["Maxim Katcharov" <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com>]

On 6/3/06, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Because it confuses "Alice herself wore a hat" with whatever you have
for "Alice ...??... surrounded a building". Alice herself does not
surround the building, and Alice ...??... does (do?) not wear a hat.

> > In "...wore hats", it is used in a way that means that Alice herself wore a hat.
>
> Yes, because "wore hats" is distributive.

So each predicate is marked for distributivity/non-distributivity
(bunch-indiv/bunch-together)?

What is {lo tadni cu bebna} marked for? How about {lo tadni cu sruri
lo skori}? What if they're playing tug-of-war? What if they're
standing around a rope looking up at the person climbing it? What if
several paths surround the building, and we're talking of them?

> > 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.

So it expands to {la alis cmizu'e nu ...}?

No, "surrounded the building" is not inherently collective, and
neither is any other selbri or sumti-slot.

> 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.

I wasn't suggesting that you did, I was giving an example of an answer
that is straightforward and sensible. But I'll go ahead anyway:

None at all? You must have a relative objection that makes you choose
"plural predication" over it, right?

> > 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.

Yes, "a" not "the".

> > 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.

Predicates don't have default distributivity/non-distributivity.