[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all}
On 7/10/06, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Boy I dropped this one too soon. This is all very clear and thus easily answered. Suppose in the
group surrounding the building there are some non-students and suppose further that, if all the
students were in their same places and these non-students were absent (and not replaced by
others), then the building would not be surrounded. In this case is {loi tadni cu sruri le
dinju}true? NO! Since the building was not surrounded but for the non-students, the students did
not surround the building *though they participated in the surrounding and may even have been the
main force in it -- and might even have been able to surround the building by moving to new
arrangements).
So, is {loi tadni cu sruri le dinju} equivalent to {da poi sruri le dinju cu gunma lo tadni}?
Assuming that {gunma2) need not be a complete list of the members (whatever) of the mass (that {se
gunma} means "is a member of mass..." not "are all the members of mass...") then NO! again, ssince
the latter allows that others might be essentially involved. (I skip over xorxes' worries about
admitting that there are such things as masses; they make no detectable difference). The {loi}
form is apparently equivalent to {da poi srur le dinju cu gunma lo tadni po'o] however (much as I
hate sing {po'o}).
Yes. My first June 11th message addressed this:
<
Sure. I'd be perfectly happy to say that
loi tadni cu sruri lo dinju
expands to
[da poi sruri lo dinju] cu gunma [[lo tadni] po'o]
for the purposes of this discussion, since really, the discussion
isn't much affected by it.
This is beside the point of this discussion.
In this discussion, I ask you to provide an explanation of how your
plural predication /could/ work, using ideas that we all agree on.
I've done it for my explanation of how things "could" work using
gunma/mass/one-thing-that-is, and I'd like you to do the same for
yours. Everything I've used to explain myself we can all agree on.
Or perhaps you could tell me why you think that it what you offer is
sufficient? It's as if we're two primitive people looking at a car. I
say that it must be water and fire that moves it ("I hear water noises
when we push it around, and smoke comes out the back when it moves"),
and you say that it works through "the force of Dutablibi". That's
appealing, but it would be a lot better if you told me how this all
happens using things that we both agree on.