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

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

On 6/6/06, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/6/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > So a second {lo} has no outer quantifier?
>
> Neither a second {lo} nor a first {lo}, no, nor any other gadri, nor any
> other sumti. There are never any hidden outer quantifiers from my
> point of view.

I'm not talking about hidden. I'm talking about there being one. When
I say "lo tadni", there's some number in that inner, and some number
in that outer. We just don't know/say which. But there is a number
there, whatever it is. But there's a number there.

So {lo re lo ci tadni} is "(??? of) the 2 of the 3 students", or "an
undefined number of the 2 of the 3 students".

> > > {le tadni} always refers the same things, but the slot it fills could be
> > > marked as distributive or non-distributive, yes.
> >
> > No, not marked. We've been through this. Slots are not marked for anything.
>
> We'll just have to agree to disagree about that then.

Agreeing to disagree is agreeing to stop arguing. If you want to stop
arguing, that's fine. I think I've shown quite clearly that, even by
your standards, in "x1 sruri x2" (and in all other relationships) x1
is not marked for anything, and x2 is not automatically marked for
distributivity (bunch-individually) or non-distributivity
(bunch-together).

> > >  la alis me pa le tadni poi ge ro ke'a dasni lo mapku gi lu'o ke'a
> > > sruri le dinju
> > >  "Alice is one of the students which each wear a hat and together surround
> > >  the building".
> >
> > Ok, then what, if not a mass, are you using to describe the
> > relationship? You don't say the word {gunma}, but it's still a mass -
> > unless you can describe some other thing, like "bunch-together" (which
> > you havn't been able to make at all distinct from "mass").
>
> No other thing besides the students themselves is needed for me.

Ok, now prove/show/describe it. If no "other thing" is needed, then
explain what the relationship between the students and the
surroundment of the building is. How it differs from my "mass"
interpretation, and how it differs from the "bunch-individually"
interpretation. It is different, isn't it?

> {le tadni cu ckaji ge lo ka ro ke'a dasni lo mapku gi lo ka lu'o ke'a
> sruri le dinju}
>
> "The students (and I'm not talking about anything but the students here) have
> the property that (1) they wear hats individually and (2) they surround the
> building together."
>
> It's the very same students that have both properties.

Ok. So it's the very same students that surround the building
individually, and that compose the group that surrounds the building.
Right?

You keep using words that we haven't decided on the definitions of.
The issue is what lo means, what lu'o means, what loi means. You seem
to be using your interpretation of those words to prove your
interpretation of those words. How on earth does {lu'o ke'a sruri...}
tell me anything about what relationship your lu'o entails? Does it
transform ke'a into a mass?

> > > > > (1) Each boy took one chair.
> > > > > (2) Five boys took one chair each, one boy took two chairs, and the three
> > > > >      remaining boys took the last chair (a very heavy one perhaps).
> > > >
> > > > It's enough to say that the group of boys took the group of chairs,
> > > > because it'll probably be your choice to see it in that way
> > > > (regardless of how who did what). If you want to be explicit about it,
> > > > you can just write it out in Lojban as you did here in English.
> > >
> > > Indeed, that's my point.
> >
> > Your pluralist method isn't needed to handle this.
>
> If we are both happy with {le nanla cu bevri le stizu le purdi} to describe
> a situation where the boys took the chairs to the garden but we don't
> care whether each boy took one chair or they took chairs in some other

No, we aren't both happy. I'm happy with perhaps {loi nanla cu bevri
loi stizu le pa purdi}, because I can choose to see them as a
group/mass that carries over another group/mass.

I agree that you can see them as a mass or group. I don't agree that
you can altogether scrap "mass" (or group) in the description of
what's really going on here.

> different distribution, then it doesn't really matter how we analyze the
> sentence. We'd have a problem if one admitted the sentence and the
> other didn't. I thought you didn't accept that one expression could cover
> all those different situations, but if you do, we have nothing substantial
> to argue about.