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

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

On 6/11/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
> The surest way to show that I'm a fool for asking this 30th time
> is to point me to an explanation that I haven't rightly shown to
> be unexplanatory.

I don't think you are a fool.

Explanations are pointless at this point, because definitions cannot
be right or wrong. We are now working with different definitions.
At this point your {loi tadni cu sruri le dinju} and my {loi tadni cu
sruri le dinju} are applicable in different situations. For example, in
a situation where students are on one side of the building and
professors are on the other side, in such a way that students
and professors surround the building together, you can say
that {loi tadni cu sruri le dinju} = "a group that includes students
surrounds the building", and I can't say {loi tadni cu sruri le dinju}
= "students surround the building".

For me {loi tadni} means "students", just like {lo tadni}, and
the mass gadri in addition indicates that whatever is predicated
of the students is predicated non-distributively. For you it means
"a group of things that includes students among its members",
which is something quite different.

At the beginning of the discussion, I thought we both understood
what {loi tadni cu sruri le dinju} meant (more or less what it
has always meant in Lojban) and we were comparing
different ways of analyzing the sentence to get to that meaning. Now
it appears that we don't even understand the sentence to
mean the same thing. Comparing two ways of analyzing it as if
we thought it meant the same thing for both is pointless.

mu'o mi'e xorxes