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

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

--- Jorge Llamb�as <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 7/10/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Has there been any progress on a response? My last message was both
> > short and lucid; I imagine that the responding silence indicates
> > concession, though I doubt that this is the case.
> 
> It only indicates that I didn't see us getting anywhere. But let's pick up where
> we left if you want.
> 
> 
> > On 6/11/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 6/11/06, Jorge Llamb�as <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > I don't think that this is the issue.
> 
> I think it is. In particular, we seem to have different understandings
> of what "distributivity" means. Do you accept that some relationships
> can be non-distributive in one ore more of their arguments? If you don't
> agree, if you can only accept distributive relationships, then no matter
> how much we argue, we won't get anywhere.
> 
> 
> > > For example, both of us understand and agree with a 1to1 relationship:
> > >
> > >  Alice is inside the school
> 
> I wouldn't call that a 1to1 relationship. That for me is a predication.
> The relationship in that predication is "...is inside of..." and it is not
> necessarily 1to1. For example, there may be other people inside the
> school, and Alice may be inside some other thing (a classroom, for
> example) when she is inside the school. But that's probably irrelevant
> to what we were discussing.
> 
> > > and both of us understand and agree with the basic plurally
> > > predicative relationship
> > >
> > >  the 26 students are inside the school >>
> > >  Alice is inside the school
> > >  Bryce is inside the school
> > >  [...]
> > >  Zoe is inside the school
> 
> We agree that "...is inside of..." can be distributive, yes.
> 
> > > and both of us understand and agree with the "mass" relationship
> > >
> > >  the graphite and the wood are component parts of the pencil >>
> > >  the graphite is a component part of the pencil
> > >  the wood is a component part of the pencil
> 
> There is nothing new there. "...is a component part of..." is just as
> distributive as "...is inside of...". Nothing especially "mass" about it.
> It is not an example of a non-distributive relation. There is no
> reason to call "...is a component part of..." a mass relationship.
> 
> 
> > > I don't see your position as equally sensible. If I were to say "ok,
> > > there's no mass involved", I would have nothing like this to rely on.
> > > I would have
> > >
> > > Alice is a referent of X
> > > X surround the building < axiomic explanation of this is needed
> 
> As written, that doesn't make sense. If Alice is a referent of X, then
> X has to be something like a word. But words don't surround buildings,
> so X could not surround the building.
> 
> What we want to say is
> 
> Alice is one of X
> X surround the building.
> 
> where "X" is a plural variable, i.e. a variable with (possibly) more than one
> referent, and where "...surround..." is a relation that can be non-distributive
> with respect to its first argument (also with respect to the second, but that's
> not relevant in this example).
> 
> 
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > If you'd like, it can be "an entity composed of students", it doesn't
> > > really matter. And yes, this would be quite different, because it
> > > treats the students together as a different entity than each of the
> > > students themselves.
> 
> Quite. You only accept referring to single entities, either to the single
> entity that consists of all the students, or to each of the students at
> a time. You won't admit a variable that has several referents, the students
> themselves not a new entity consisting of the students, which is what
> we need for plural predication.
> 
> mu'o mi'e xorxes

And it seems he does not allow even these single entities the full range of properties -- or he
doesn't translate well between the two equivalent languages "Alice is one of X" = "Alice is a
member of X" and so on.