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

[John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>]

This seems to be dialectal.  I can't say "Alice
is a shipmate," not even as short for "Alice is a
shipmate of someone."  So "Alsice and David are
shipmates" in the distributive sense is not
possible for me either. (But I think the analysis
of "Alice and David are not shipmates" as being
collective is also mistaken.)

--- Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 6/5/06, Alex Martini <alexjm@umich.edu>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Jun 5, 2006, at 9:12 PM, Maxim Katcharov
> wrote:
> >
> > > On 6/5/06, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >> --- Maxim Katcharov
> <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > 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.
> > >>
> > >> I suggest you actually read the book,
> especially
> > >> the formal semantics.  Or read some of
> Quine's
> > >> stuff (I'm sorry I don't have references
> to
> > >> hand).
> > >
> > > I've read the first chapter of McKay's, and
> found that the author
> > > confused several issues. For example, he
> states that Alice is not a
> > > shipmate on her own, when she clearly is.
> She is shipmate of Bryce and
> > > Carol, etc. because she is in the same
> group as them, and not a
> > > shipmate of David and Erica, because they
> are of a different group.
> > >
> > > Two things regarding the suggestion. First,
> it seems that you think
> > > that I don't understand how it works. I
> think that I do understand how
> > > it works, it's just that I disagree with
> it. Second, I'm not arguing
> > > with Quine, or McKay, because sadly they
> don't subscribe to this list.
> > > I'm arguing with you and xorxes. I expect
> you to be able to argue
> > > against my position as well as Quine or
> McKay would, otherwise you
> > > really have no business arguing for or 
> believing in their position.
> > > If I show you to be wrong, you'll may just
> end up falling back on "oh,
> > > well, that doesn't mean that Quine was
> wrong".
> > >
> >
> > I beg to differ -- no person can ever be his
> own shipmate, any more
> > than he can be his own sibling or classmate
> or anything else of that
> > type.
> 
> So? You can't be a kicker without a thing
> kicked, you can't be a
> toucher without something to touch. In the same
> way, you can't be a
> shipmate without another shipmate. However,
> Alice /has/ a shipmate.
> McKay states
> 
> "
> "Arnie, Bob and Carlos are shipmates." This is
> something true of the
> three of them together. We cannot say "Arnie is
> a shipmate" except
> perhaps as elliptical for something that
> connects Arnie to others.
> (Arnie is a shipmate of someone.)
> "
> 
> The problem with that is that we can say "Arnie
> is a shipmate".
> There's no perhaps here. What we mean when we
> say "Arnie is a
> shipmate" is that he's a shipmate of someone.
> 
> The first, "A B C are shipmates", is an
> altogether different
> relationship than "A is a shipmate". The former
> says "A B C
> are-part-of-a-group (called ?)", the latter
> says "A
> is-in-a-group-with/is-a-mate-of ?".
> 
> Let's take Alice and David: Alice and B C are
> of class 306, David and
> E F are of class 201.
> 
> Alice and David are classmates.
> Alice and David aren't classmates.
> 
> Both are (can be) true, since "classmates" can
> mean two things. First,
> it can be treated as a standard plural: it is
> true that Alice is a
> classmate (of B C), and that David is a
> classmate (of E F), and so
> Alice and David are classmates. However, they
> aren't classmates of
> *each other*, which is the usual interpretation
> of "classmates" (mates
> of the same grouping).
> 
> > The word inherently implies a *different*
> member of the *same*
> > group. For example, if I say {Alice and her
> shipmates arrived.},
> > including Alice in her shipmates is quite
> absurd since she is then
> > counted twice.
> 
> Sure. This is the "mate" relationship. Alice
> and the mates of Alice
> arrived. Obviously not Alice and everyone in
> the same group as Alice
> arrived.
> 
> > If I say {All my classmates left the room.},
> I don't
> > include myself. These types of words simply
> don't allow a reciprocal
> > relationship.
> >
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
> lojban-list-request@lojban.org
> with the subject unsubscribe, or go to
> http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
> you're really stuck, send mail to
> secretary@lojban.org for help.
> 
>