[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

On 6/5/06, Alex Martini <alexjm@umich.edu> wrote:


On Jun 5, 2006, at 9:12 PM, Maxim Katcharov wrote:

> On 6/5/06, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> --- Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On 5/29/06, Jorge Llambías
>> > <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > On 5/29/06, Maxim Katcharov
>> > <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > My argument here was that the burden of
>> > proof is on you to show that
>> > > > a) this pluralist view exists
>> > >
>> > > You can check that the pluralist view exists
>> > for example starting
>> > > here:
>> >
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_quantification>
>> > > The "external links" at the bottom of the
>> > page are also interesting.
>> > >
>> >
>> > I don't argue that people don't support it, I
>> > argue that it has no
>> > distinct existance aside from "mass", and so is
>> > not correct.
>>
>> I suggest you actually read the book, especially
>> the formal semantics.  Or read some of Quine's
>> stuff (I'm sorry I don't have references to
>> hand).
>
> I've read the first chapter of McKay's, and found that the author
> confused several issues. For example, he states that Alice is not a
> shipmate on her own, when she clearly is. She is shipmate of Bryce and
> Carol, etc. because she is in the same group as them, and not a
> shipmate of David and Erica, because they are of a different group.
>
> Two things regarding the suggestion. First, it seems that you think
> that I don't understand how it works. I think that I do understand how
> it works, it's just that I disagree with it. Second, I'm not arguing
> with Quine, or McKay, because sadly they don't subscribe to this list.
> I'm arguing with you and xorxes. I expect you to be able to argue
> against my position as well as Quine or McKay would, otherwise you
> really have no business arguing for or  believing in their position.
> If I show you to be wrong, you'll may just end up falling back on "oh,
> well, that doesn't mean that Quine was wrong".
>

I beg to differ -- no person can ever be his own shipmate, any more
than he can be his own sibling or classmate or anything else of that
type.


So? You can't be a kicker without a thing kicked, you can't be a
toucher without something to touch. In the same way, you can't be a
shipmate without another shipmate. However, Alice /has/ a shipmate.
McKay states

"
"Arnie, Bob and Carlos are shipmates." This is something true of the
three of them together. We cannot say "Arnie is a shipmate" except
perhaps as elliptical for something that connects Arnie to others.
(Arnie is a shipmate of someone.)
"

The problem with that is that we can say "Arnie is a shipmate".
There's no perhaps here. What we mean when we say "Arnie is a
shipmate" is that he's a shipmate of someone.

The first, "A B C are shipmates", is an altogether different
relationship than "A is a shipmate". The former says "A B C
are-part-of-a-group (called ?)", the latter says "A
is-in-a-group-with/is-a-mate-of ?".

Let's take Alice and David: Alice and B C are of class 306, David and
E F are of class 201.

Alice and David are classmates.
Alice and David aren't classmates.

Both are (can be) true, since "classmates" can mean two things. First,
it can be treated as a standard plural: it is true that Alice is a
classmate (of B C), and that David is a classmate (of E F), and so
Alice and David are classmates. However, they aren't classmates of
*each other*, which is the usual interpretation of "classmates" (mates
of the same grouping).


The word inherently implies a *different* member of the *same*
group. For example, if I say {Alice and her shipmates arrived.},
including Alice in her shipmates is quite absurd since she is then
counted twice.


Sure. This is the "mate" relationship. Alice and the mates of Alice
arrived. Obviously not Alice and everyone in the same group as Alice
arrived.


If I say {All my classmates left the room.}, I don't
include myself. These types of words simply don't allow a reciprocal
relationship.




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.