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

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

On 6/11/06, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

On 6/11/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/10/06, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> > An outermost quantifier is distributive,
> > an outermost mass-marker is non-distributive. It's that simple.
>
> No doubt it's a simple rule, but the question is if it's the proper
> way to describe how we communicate.

It's a proper way to describe how I understand Lojban works.
That's all I can offer you.

> > la .alis .e la betis = ro le re prenu
> > la .alis joi la betis = lei re prenu
> > la .alis jo'u la betis = le re prenu
>
> Are you offering these definitions as suggestions, or
> as explanations of how it really is?

As explanations of how I understand them to work in Lojban.


pagbu and gunma, based on the information (from CLL and the gismu
list) that I provided, seemed to be the corresponding ideas. What are
you basing your interpretations on?



> So you would disagree that
>
>  loi tadni cu sruri lo dinju
>
> expands to
>
>  [da poi sruri lo dinju] cu gunma [lo tadni]
>
> which you had previously described as a legitimate interpretation,
> yes?

Using your place structure for {gunma} with distributive x2, I
would disagree, yes. I agreed when I thought we were using
{gunma} with the same meaning.


This is an expansion of non-distributivity. By its nature, one should
assume that it doesn't use yet more non-distributivity to explain
itself.



> {loi tadni cu sruri lo skori} and {ro lo tadni cu
> sruri lo skori} are different in some way, yes?

Yes.

> I'm asking you to explain the difference.

I've already already done that. (And besides you understand
the difference perfectly well.)


I understand *my* difference perfectly well. So far you've given me
"differences" that apply to both distributive and non-distributive.

The surest way to show that I'm a fool for asking this 30th time is to
point me to an explanation that I haven't rightly shown to be
unexplanatory.



> Alice is part of X
> X surrounds the building
>
> Alice wears a hat
>
> Is the difference not apparent there?

Yes. In the pluralist view one would say instead:

Alice is one of X
X surround the building


In which case you'd no longer be using first order logic. Now, if the
axiomic nature of first order logic is not available to you, then you
should use something else. But you can't just say that your pluralist
interpretation is axiomic itself, because it clearly isn't.

And what's the difference between that and

Alice is one of X
X wear the hats

Clearly, Alice does not relate in the same way to the wearing of hats
as she does to the surroundment of the building, but you seem to gloss
over this *critically* important point. What's the difference between:

Alice is one of X
X surround the rope
(e.g. they're standing around a rope)

and

Alice is one of X
X surround the rope
(e.g. they're playing tug-of-war)



In the singularist approach, X is a single thing, distinct from the
things that surround the building and consisting of them, while
in the plural approach X are many things, just those very things
that surround the building.

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.





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.