[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all}
On 7/11/06, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
How much formal semantics do you know? What version are you most familiar with, if any? I am
trying to find some common background that would be adequate to explain both your psoition and
xorxes' in a single framework. I thought it could be done in ordinary talk, but xorxes' efforts
along that line suggest that it cannot be. Incidentally (well, not really), when we get done with
all the xplanation it wills till turn out that the two ways of talking are equivalent, that for
every sentence of one there is another sentence (often outwardly identical)that is true in exactly
the same situations (necessarily).
Start with whatever sound version is easiest for you. I'm not a
semanticist by trade, so I'll have no preference. Keep in mind that I
don't agree that you can predicate something of many things without
treating them, in your mind, together as a singular thing. To you it
may seem obvious that it just "works", but I find it specious: it
sounds believable, but when I ask for a proof that it can work, there
is none.
(In the meantime, something to consider.) When I first started
learning Lojban, I found the translation of English plurals strange.
{su'o re la gerku} seemed like an unintuitive and deficient
translation of "the dogs" - is that really the only reason we have
plurals? was the distinction between numerical 1 and all those numbers
greater than 1 - was this distinction by itself important enough to
have such a great effect on language? I didn't think much of it at the
time, but looking back now I find that this corresponds to my
position. It is my understanding that the large difference between 1
and >1 stems from how our minds treat single entities vs single
entities composed of many entities. Also, I've mentioned it before,
but if we're not referring to any one of the students in "the students
surround the building", then what is being considered? I think that
the answer was "the students together", without an explanation of how
this plural predication, having no thing to predicate, worked. I bring
this up again because this is basically what I'd like a proof for. If
an explanation/proof can't be given, then perhaps an example that
seems to support your method, similar to my explanation regarding
plurality given here.
--- Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/10/06, Jorge Llamb�as <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/10/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > What's a plural variable?
> >
> > A variable that can have more than one referent at the same time.
> >
> > > I point out that again, you're not offering any sort of explanation of
> > > 'non-distributive', you're simply assuming that it exists.
> >
> > All right then, we'll just have to leave it at that. I'm afraid my pedagogical
> > resources are exhausted.
> >
>
> I don't think that you've explained anything, though you've certainly
> repeated "plural predication exists" many, many times. I take your
> inability to explain your position as a sign that your position isn't
> based on something explicable. If you do think that you've offered an
> explanation of plural predication, let me know where it is. I would
> hate to have your exchanges end and have missed it.
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
> with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
> you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
>
>
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.