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

["Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On 6/6/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/6/06, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.

That's what I mean by hidden, that it's supposedly there but you can't
see/hear it.

> When
> I say "lo tadni", there's some number in that inner, and some number
> in that outer.

When I say it, there isn't, especially an outer one. An inner one is less
relevant, and it doesn't matter much if you assume there is one.

> > > > {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.

Yes.

> 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).

I never said x2 or x1 are automatically marked for anything. Both can
be marked either way.

I think we've been basically repeating ourselves for the last twenty or
thirty posts, and it's fairly clear that neither of us is going to convince
the other of anything, that's why I said we might just agree to disagree.
I'm not getting much out of this, but I don't mind repeating a bit more
if you are getting something out of it.

> > No other thing besides the students themselves is needed for me.
>
> Ok, now prove/show/describe it.

There's no "it", just them, the students. What kind of description
do you want? They are human beings, most of them in their early
twenties, of both sexes, grubby clothes, what else?

> 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?

Is it? The only difference seems to be that you only admit
non-distributive properties for them, while I think they can
(and indeed do) have both distributive and non-distributive
properties at the same time.

> > {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?

They wear the hats individually and surround the building together, yes.

> You keep using words that we haven't decided on the definitions of.

They are ordinary English words, I don't mean them in any technical
sense.

> The issue is what lo means, what lu'o means, what loi means.

lo: converts a selbri into a sumti, selecting the selbri's x1 argument.
loi: like {lo}, and in addition it marks the slot which the sumti occupies
    as non-distributive
lu'o: It marks a sumti so that the slot it occupies is non-distributive.

> You seem
> to be using your interpretation of those words to prove your
> interpretation of those words.

A definition is a definition, it doesn't have to be proved.

> 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?

It marks the ke'a-slot as non-distributive. You can view it as transforming
whatever ke'a is reserving a place for into a mass if you like. I prefer not
to, but I don't think there is any problem in doing it that way.

> > 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.

Including a situation where each boy carries just one chair?
What do you think of {loi tadni cu dasni loi mapku}?

mu'o mi'e xorxes