[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all}
On 6/9/06, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
1) {lu'o lo ro lo tadni}
You can potentially have
2) {lu'o ci lo ro lo tadni}
can you not? If you have (2) in mind, you can just say (1). So (1)
could be (2). (1) could even potentially be:
3) {lu'o ro lo ro lo tadni}
If your grammar says that an outer {ro} on a {lo} marks it for
distributivity, why is (1) exempt from this rule?
The explanation you gave was that you see it as "students (surrounded
the building)". Is that an explanation of {lo tadni}, or {lo ro lo
tadni}?
I asked you what {lu'o ro lo tadni} was. You said {lu'o lo ro lo
tadni}. So an outer {ro} automatically gets a second {lo}? Or is that
only when it's needed to excuse an infeasible aspect of your position?
> > 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.
As I've said, this isn't English, you don't need the same pragmatics
and verbatim translations. If I respond (1) "he came to work sober
today" to "was he drunk?", it does not follow that he was drunk on
other days. Even if I said (1) without provocation, it does not
logically follow that he must be a drunkard, it only pragmatically
'follows'.
Now, I could say {lu'o la alis cu sruri lo dinju}, but usually I
wouldn't. I'd say {lo rokci joi la alis cu sruri lo dinju}. However,
the former would still be true - Alice is a part of the
surrounder/surroundment of the building.
> > 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
I'd still like to have that explanation of distributivity that I've
been asking for.
1) {lu'o la tadni cu sruri lo dinju}
2) {loi tadni cu sruri lo dinju}
3) {la tadni cu sruri lo dinju}
4) {la tadni cu dasni lo mapku}
What is Alice's relationship to each relationship? I've explained
exactly what it means for all 4 - 1&2 would be expanded in the manner
described (which you still seem to be at odds with), and 3&4 would not
expand, and could not mean 1 nor 2. 3 would probably be false. If I
were to be lazy, and in my mind thought of them as a mass that wore a
mass of hats ("oh look, they're all wearing hats"), I could very well
say {loi tadni cu dasni loi mapku}. That is my position.
You still have not offered an explained how Alice, a student, relates
to anything in a useful way. The explanations offered apply to
most/all of these at the same time, and so aren't useful in terms of
explaining what each is. I've offered an explanation of my position in
English, and since this pluralist view of yours /clearly/ isn't
axiomic, you should either be able to do the same. If not, then I
think that the sensible person can assume that it's not the proper way
to look at things. The part that I find particularly strange is that
{lo tadni cu sruri lo skori}
can expand to either
{[da poi sruri lo skori] cu gunma [la alis]} or
{lo tadni cu sruri lo skori}
where the second one, by your methods, is actually described by
{lo lo tadni cu sruri lo skori}
If it were
{lo tadni} >
{lo pu tadni} or
{lo ba tadni}
then, yes, that's perfectly fine. But
{lo tadni cu sruri lo skori} >
{[da poi sruri lo skori] cu gunma [la alis]} or
{lo lo tadni cu sruri lo skori}
? I can't imagine the rationale for /that/.
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.