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

["Maxim Katcharov" <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

On 5/27/06, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/27/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/27/06, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > All I'm saying is that the view that
> > > does not introduce any encompassing entity is, for me at least, the most
> > > useful. That way I can say:
> > >
> > >    le mu no tadni cu dasni lo mapku gi'e sruri le dinju
> > >    "The fifty students wore hats and surrrounded the building."
> > >
> > > without claiming that there was any single entity that both wore a hat
> > > and surrounded the building.
> >
> > This is a somewhat absurd misrepresentation (or misunderstanding) of
> > my position. I've never said that this entity (the mass of students)
> > would wear a single hat; this is clearly and absolutely wrong. But
> > this entity /would/ surround the building. We say two things: "50
> > things wear hats", "1 thing surrounds the building".
>
> Right. I suppose it doesn't bother you that the same phrase {le mu no
> tadni} is being used to refer to the fifty things and also to the one thing at
> the same time.

I don't think it's right, which is why I don't support your ambiguous
"individual here, together there" use of {lo}.

> Personally, I prefer to say that it just refers to the fifty things,
> and that both claims are about those fifty things only. But in the end it
> doesn't really matter. If we both agree that the sentence is proper Lojban,

Which sentence? No, I don't think that it's ok to use {lo cribe}
individually in one part, and then as a mass in another part. You
should use lu'o or similar.

> and we both understand what it means, it is of little consequence how we
> analyze it. Each can choose his own explanation. We would only have a
> problem if one of us thought that the phrase was normal Lojban and the
> other thought it made some weird claim.
>
> > > > When {su'o} is used, you don't mean some special number called "some".
> > > > You mean that the listener should make a best guess as to what the
> > > > number could be (maybe it's five, maybe it's all of whatever number is
> > > > the inner).
> > >
> > > I think it would be more correct to say that {su'o} is a special quantifier
> > > (if not strictly a number) called "some". For example, in:
> > >
> > >     naku su'o prenu cu klama
> > >     It is not the case that at least some person came.
> > >
> > > you don't want the listener to make any best guess for {su'o}. Any number
> > > you replace {su'o} with will make a claim different from the one intended.
> >
> > How are the following different:
> >
> > naku su'o lo prenu cu klama
> >
> > naku lo prenu cu klama
>
> Not very different. The point of the example was to show that {su'o} is not
> an invitation to the listener to make a best guess at a number.

By your replies further in the thread, they seem to be quite different for you:

> > naku su'o lo prenu cu klama

Not the case that some people came.

> > naku lo prenu cu klama

May mean that they didn't come as a mass, or that not the case that
some people came - we can't really tell which.

> > >    lo tadni pu sruri le dinju
> > >    "Students surrrounded the building."
> > >
> > >    su'o lo tadni pu sruri le dinju
> > >    "At least one student surrounded the building."
> >
> > How are these claims different, aside from the first English one
> > meaning "at least 2" because of the plural form?
>
> The second one for me says that there was at least one student that
> surrounded the building him or herself, because outer quantifiers are
> distributive. The first one does not make that unlikely claim.

Ok, so your rule for using {lo} distributively/ambiguously is "if the
outer is blank, it is ambiguous, otherwise, distributive", correct?

> > >     lo cribe pu citka ro le mi jbari
> > >     "Bears ate all my berries."
> > >
> > >     su'o lo cribe pu citka ro le mi jbari
> > >     "At least one bear ate all my berries."
> >
> > Again, how are these different?
>
> The first one does not claim that at least one bear ate all the berries
> by itself, while the second one does.
>
> > > > > > > {ro lo mapku} = each hat
> > > > > > > {lo ro mapku} = all hats
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All of what hats?
> > > > >
> > > > > All things that count as hats.
> > > >
> > > > All things that count as hats are All hats (existing now, future,
> > > > past, hypothetically, etc.). Your "all" is very different. Your "all"
> > > > means "all of some relevant/contextually-sensible group".
> > >
> > > No. As I said before "all hats" is contextually sensible, because
> > > what counts as a hat is contextually sensible, but it does not
> > > mean "all contextually sensible hats" because when you mention
> > > "contextually sensible hats" you immediately bring into the picture
> > > hats that are not contextually sensible as well. In other words, context
> >
> > If you and I are talking of Alice and Bob talking about "all hats", my
> > saying that "all hats means all contextually sensible hats" does
> > **not** bring "all other hats" into *Alice and Bob's* conversation. It
> > brings it into *our* conversation.
>
> Right. I probably misunderstand your use of quotes then. When you say
> "X" means "Y", you don't mean that you can replace X with Y and get the
> same meaning, then?

u'i, ok:

"did you see [all of a contextually sensible group of bears] when you
went to the zoo?"
"did you see all *the* bears when you went to the zoo?"

...are equivalent. Yes, you can replace them. The simple implication
of non-relevant bears noes *not* include those irrelevant bears in the
*contextually sensible/relevant* group of bears.

> > > sensibility is something that you can discuss in the metalanguage,
> > > when discussing what a phrase means, it is not something that you
> > > can incorporate into the phrase without changing its meaning.
> >
> > Luckily, we're not incorporating it into the phrase, rather we're
> > talking about its meaning within the phrase.
>
> OK, in that case we may be in agreement. {lo ro mapku} refers to all things
> that count as hats in the context where the phrase is used, not to things that
> may count as hats in other contexts, since those other things by definition
> are inaccessible in the context where the phrase was used. It cannot therefore
> be equivalent to another phrase with a restriction in it.

What cannot be equivalent to what other phrase with what kind of
restriction in 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.