[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all}
On 6/9/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
For
example, I think that the following is grammatical under your rules,
but I find the interpretation infeasible (or awkward), since it uses
both "markers":
lu'o ro lo tadni cu sruri lo dinju
For me that's equivalent to {lu'o lo ro lo tadni} and it marks the slot
that the sumti fills as non-distributive. It is only the outermost marker
that concerns the distributivity of the slot.
> But now the disagreement seems to occur at an earlier step.
> We no longer seem to agree about the meaning of (1). For example,
> if there is a chain of rocks around the building, with a gap filled by
> Alice, who is a student, you would say that (1) is true and I would
> say it is false.
loi rokci cu sruri le dinju
What would you say of that, assuming that the surroundment wouldn't
work if Alice wasn't there? Would it, too, be false?
Right. It is not the case that rocks surround the building.
As I've said, this is an issue of pragmatics. The speaker would likely
say "[the rocks and Alice] surrounded the building" in the first
place.
Yes: {lo rokci joi la alis cu sruri le dinju}.
But apparently under your current interpretation, from that it follows that
{loi rokci cu sruri le dinju} and also that {lu'o la alis cu sruri le dinju}
(= {lai alis cu sruri le dinju}?). But neither of those follow at all, the
way I understand it.
> For me it is false because it is not the case that
> students surround the building in that case. For you it is true because
> it is the case that a group of things that includes at least one student
> surrounds the building.
>
> Do we at least agree on what we disagree about?
I think so
OK, it is a definitional matter then. You may want to argue for your
proposed definition, proposed as a change, but I don't think you can just
assert that it is the one that Lojban currently has or ever had.
(And this new argument is independent of the one we were having previously,
on whether or not the distributivity marker should be obligatory or not.)
mu'o mi'e xorxes
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.