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

[John E Clifford <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

so here is where I have gotten to so far.  Since
it seems to strike an important point, I jump in
here.

--- Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 5/29/06, Jorge Llambías
> <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/28/06, Maxim Katcharov
> <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > What I'd like to know is how you account
> for the building being
> > > surrounded. What surrounds it?
> >
> > The students.
> 
> Avoiding the word "mass"/"crowd" when you say
> "the students" does not
> mean that "the students" does not refer to a
> group of students. It
> does.

The point is that there is no necessary
connection between using (or not) expressions
like "group, mass, crowd" etc. and there being
such separate things as groups, masses and crowds
over and above their members.  You can have only
inidviduals, only bunches (to use my favorite
word in a restricted sense) or both.  The
language can be exactly  the same in all cases. 
So you cannot say, on the basis of the language,
that there are (or are not) such things as
bunches.  Conversely, if you are committed to
there being bunches (or not) -- for whatever
reason (but note that others are not obligated to
find your reasons compelling) -- you cannot say
that the language has to be such and such a way. 
Lojban grew up in a certain climate  of Logic,
one which was either ignorant of or chose to
ignore ways of dealing with plurality other than
by C-sets.  But people who worked with Lojban
(including the creators and before them the
creator of Loglan) were always aware that this
approach was ultimately unsatisfactory (if the
use of sets were restricted -- as it was -- to
the usual set--theoretical devices).  What plural
reference has done is call attention to another
system of Logic, going back to the 1930s, which
offers a different way of dealing with the
problems, one that corresponds better with the
original intuitions for which sets (and, even
more obscurely, masses) were formerly the best
known.  To be sure, plural reference gives one
interpretation  to this logic, the original
propounders gave another, but they work equally
well.  The move makes very little change in
Lojban: making all the references to sets and
masses uniform references to pluralities /
bunches and the need -- which was present already
-- to find a way of indicating the mode of
predication outside of the gadri (and some
closely related forms).  This need was present
already because there are places where either
mode might be present but a gadri cannot be used
to indicate which is used, chiefly within sumti
expressions themselves: "those who surrounded the
bulding" has the same structure as "those who
wore green hats" and no gadri can be brought in
to distinguish the different cases.  We could, of
course, use the {lo / loi} distinction here, but
then we need another device to describe the
relation of this sumti to its main predicate. 
And so on.  
 
> >
> > > Each student does *not* surround it.
> >
> > Correct.
> >
> > > What surrounds it is that "mass" of
> students.
> >
> > That's one way of doing it, yes, and a valid
> way. That's the singularist way.
> > Another valid way is to use plural reference:
> "the students" is not taken
> > to refer to a single thing, but rather to
> many things at the same time.
> > It is not taken to have one referent but
> many.
> 
> What are you talking about when you say "the
> students"? You don't mean:
> 
> 1) each student individually
> 2) that quantity of students together
> 
> so what is it that you mean? Show me how and
> what "the students"
> refers to. If it does not refer to (1), then
> your argument falls prey
> to my white dog example. I can expound on this
> concept of a mass, with
> examples etc. Same goes for the concept of
> "each student". I doubt
> that you'll be left anything to explain your
> position with once you
> start explaining. The pluralist view relies on
> not looking too deeply
> at what "the students" means, because once you
> do you see that it's
> either (1) or (2).

This position assumes that reference is a
functionfrom one referring espression to one
object.  There is no necessity to this
restriction.  Logic just as well if reference is
merely a relation, between one referring
expression and several objects.  Nothing
significant changes logically -- all the old
rules apply, the theorems are unchanged and so
on.  Personally, I find it hard to think this way
for long stretches, but that is just old,
well-engrained, habits.  I bridge the gap by
thinking in terms of bunches.  but is just my
thinking; it says nothing about what there really
is.  And the locutions of the logic langauge are
the same whichever way I think. The goal here is
to bring Lojban -- the logical language in just
this sense -- into line with the logic language. 
It turns out this takes very little; at most
adding devices for indication mode of
predication, which, as noted, were needed anyhow,
at least occasionally.
  
> Additionally, I don't think that Lojban uses
> this mistaken concept of
> "plural predication": it seems that the book
> that describes it has not
> been published yet, and so Lojban predates it
> by about 20 years.

But the logic (though not necessarily the
interpretation) predates even Loglan by at least
20 years.  And the pluralist interpretation is
present (though somewhat obscured) in Quine's
interpretation of Goodman & Leonard's
dissertation. It sometimes takes a while to
realize what you have and, in Lojban's case, to
see that something relieves felt discomforts
(which were often acknowledged and commented on).
 
> >
> > > It's a type of thing
> > > that can be clearly recognized - we even
> have names for it: crowd,
> > > mob, swarm.

We have all sorts of expressions that look like
they refer to things.  In many cases, we know
that they do not, but we use them anyhow.  It is
not clear that these are not more cases of the
same sort.

> > Indeed, those are useful concepts and we have
> several words to cover
> > them: gunma, girzu, bende, etc.
> >
> > > You seem to have a belief that you can say
> that each student surrounds
> > > the building, but only when seen in the
> company of other students.
> >
> > No, I have no such belief.
> 
> Then what surrounds the building? Please give
> an explanation,
> hopefully a detailed one, as opposed to a vague
> 2-word answer.

There is nothing vague about "the students." 
What could be more precise and still true (given
a nominalist metaphysics, say -- but that is not
even necessary).  


> > > And
> > > aha! You don't have to introduce some sort
> of strange and
> > > other-worldly entity that clearly doesn't
> belong. How efficient!
> >
> > I don't think encompassing entities are
> other-worldly at all, they are
> > ordinary and useful concepts. But in some
> cases using plural reference
> > is more convenient.

The group of students is, in any case, a real,
concrete, this-worldly, physical, and so on as
the students.

> > > > In my view {re loi ci nanmu} means the
> same as {re lo ci nanmu}, because
> > > > the non-distributivity introduced by
> {loi} is then cancelled by the
> > > > distributivity
> > > > of the outer {re}. You'd have to say {loi
> re lo ci nanmu} to get a
> > > > non-distributive
> > > > "two of three".

This is a point of controversy.  I don't think it
has been argued out fully.  I admit to being on a
different side at the moment, namely that {re loi
ci nanmu} is still a {loi} (assuming that {loi}
is a mark of collective predication).  I have to
admit also that the arguments on xorxes side have
a lot going for them.  As i say, this needs to be
argued out (but I think that can wait until we
decide whether to keep {loi} in its present role,
since a decsion there could moot this issue).

> > > This doesn't strike you as unnecessarily
> complex?
> >
> > No, I think treating outer quantifiers
> uniformly is the simplest option.
> > That way, when you say for example {ci ko'a}
> you don't have to keep
> > track of whether {ko'a} had been assigned
> with a non-distributivity marker
> > or not. You just need to remember what its
> referents are.
> >
> > > > But it is still useful to have a neutral
> form
> > > > of the sumti, so that you can combine
> distributive and non-distributive
> > > > predication without having to replicate
> the sumti.
> > >
> > > Use {lu'o} (or whatever) after a {gi'e} in
> the same transient manner
> > > in which English occasionally uses
> "together". There are many other
> > > solutions.

Quite aside from the other points, this
suggestion is not without merit, since we need
some such temporary mode indicators (I suppose
"temporary" is redundant, since modes are only
for one place on one predicate at a time). 
Whether to continue attaching these markers to
the sumti rather than the predicate -- or
somewhere in between, like "individually" and
"together" in English is also an issue.

> > {lu'o} belongs in selma'o LAhE. Its syntax
> consists of changing a sumti
> > into another sumti. It can't be used after
> {gi'e}.
> 
> I know this. Because it seems that {lu'o} is
> rudundant, I'm throwing
> out the idea that it might serve to discard the
> word, and then give it
> a new definition.
> 
> >
> > > I think it deserves mention that I don't
> see it as a "neutral form" at
> > > all, since I don't think that such a thing
> exists, aside from as an
> > > ambiguous structure in your version of
> Lojban.
> >
> > Consider this sentence: "The three men lifted
> the piano".
> >
> > We can ask for more precision in many
> different ways:
> >
> > (1) When did they do it, yesterday or last
> month?
> >
> > (2) How many times did they do it, once or
> seven times?
> >
> > (3) Where did they do it, inside the house or
> outside?
> >
> > (4) How did they do it, with their bare hands
> or with the help of a crane?
> >
> > (5) How did they do it, quickly or slowly?
> >
> > (6) How did they do it, together or
> individually?
> >
> > The precision obtained from answering (6) is
> no more special than the
> > precision obtained from answering any of the
> other questions.

Well, 6 does seem to me to be more important than
the others, since it ties in with
logical/grammatical features in a way that the
others do not.  The fact that it is shown by a
similar form in English is perhaps misleading; in
Lojban I would hope it was indicated by a cmavo
and the others not.  That does not mean that I
don't think it should be possible to say
something without specifying which of these modes
is involved: it may be obvious or we may not know
or it may be inconvenient or ... .

> 
> That sounds very nice, but no, it's quite
> different. 1 through 5 are
> all questions regarding the relationship -
> where did the act occur, by
> what means did it occur, etc. 6 is a question
> regarding the sumti -
> are we treating these men as a mass/plural, or
> individually? So let's
> rephrase:

This is one interpretation of the distinction,
but not the only one and not one that the logic
forces on us.  It is just a picture in your head,
not a reality in the world. Though the whole
event may be a reality, your interpretion of it
is only yours.
 
> (3) Which piano did they lift, the one that was
> inside the house or outside?
> 
> Now, when we get a response to that question,
> the referent doesn't
> change in the same way that "together or
> individually" would change
> it. Take our student example:
> 
> {[L_ muno tadni] cu [dasni lo mapku] gi'e
> [sruri 
=== message truncated ===

<<Now, when we get a response to that question,
the referent doesn't
change in the same way that "together or
individually" would change
it. Take our student example:

{[L_ muno tadni] cu [dasni lo mapku] gi'e [sruri
le dinju]}

When you ask "together, or individually?", you
don't get an answer
(though in each one of your other examples, you
would). You get a
re-statement, because once you specify the sumti
no longer refers to
two different things at the exact same time. So
yes, it is different
from all the 5 you mentioned prior to it.>>

Yes this is a different case, but this way of
describing the difference -- rather than in
termso of collective or distributive predication
on several individuals, say -- is not forced by
anything other than your habits.

<<This brings us right back to:

2) You can't use {lo danlu cu bajra gi'e blabi}
to refer to a white
dog and running cats, and so you can't use {[L_
muno tadni] cu [dasni
lo mapku] gi'e [sruri le dinju]} to refer to a
number of students and
to a mass composed of students.>>

IF you accept the analogy.  BUT there is no
compulsion to do so.  YOU do, but that is your
habit.  Xorxes does not and that is either his
habit or his choice.  The logic 9and the
language) works the same either way.
 
<<A mass of students is, whether it's
convenient or not, a different entity than what
each one of the
students is. >>

Who denies this?  Are you strawmanning xorxes'
position?  I am not sure whether his actual
position can be attacked along some lines like
this, but this is simply not a relevant thing to
say.

<<There is no way to refer both to "mass composed
of X" and
"X" at the same time (there is no superclass).>>

Of course, xorxes is not doing this, since he
denies (quite legitmately) that he is referring
to the mass composed of X at all.


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.