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

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

On 7/10/06, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

On 7/10/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
> Has there been any progress on a response? My last message was both
> short and lucid; I imagine that the responding silence indicates
> concession, though I doubt that this is the case.

It only indicates that I didn't see us getting anywhere. But let's pick up where
we left if you want.


> On 6/11/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 6/11/06, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 6/11/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > I don't think you are a fool.
> > >
> > > Explanations are pointless at this point, because definitions cannot
> > > be right or wrong. We are now working with different definitions.
> >
> > I don't think that this is the issue.

I think it is. In particular, we seem to have different understandings
of what "distributivity" means. Do you accept that some relationships
can be non-distributive in one ore more of their arguments? If you don't
agree, if you can only accept distributive relationships, then no matter
how much we argue, we won't get anywhere.


This isn't a matter of definition, but a matter of a difference in
understanding how this 'distributivity' works. Simple predication is
understood by everyone, simple predication is how I understand your
plural-predication to work at its core. You offer a different
explanation, but because you don't show how it /could/ work, much less
that it /is/ the way that it works, I have severe doubts about your
position.




> > For example, both of us understand and agree with a 1to1 relationship:
> >
> >  Alice is inside the school

I wouldn't call that a 1to1 relationship. That for me is a predication.
The relationship in that predication is "...is inside of..." and it is not
necessarily 1to1. For example, there may be other people inside the
school, and Alice may be inside some other thing (a classroom, for
example) when she is inside the school. But that's probably irrelevant
to what we were discussing.


The predicate of "Alice is inside the school" is "is inside the
school". By referring to it as a relationship (which is what our sort
of predication is, I think), I sought to avoid confusion. What I was
getting at by predication/relationship was in fact "...is inside
(of)...".

In this example, the relationship /is/ 1to1. There is one Alice, and
one school. There may be other things that Alice is within, but I
don't think that 1to1 should imply that I mean exclusively 1to1,
simply that in /that/ sentence, the relationship between two things is
being specified.



> > and both of us understand and agree with the basic plurally
> > predicative relationship
> >
> >  the 26 students are inside the school >>
> >  Alice is inside the school
> >  Bryce is inside the school
> >  [...]
> >  Zoe is inside the school

We agree that "...is inside of..." can be distributive, yes.

> > and both of us understand and agree with the "mass" relationship
> >
> >  the graphite and the wood are component parts of the pencil >>
> >  the graphite is a component part of the pencil
> >  the wood is a component part of the pencil

There is nothing new there. "...is a component part of..." is just as
distributive as "...is inside of...". Nothing especially "mass" about it.
It is not an example of a non-distributive relation. There is no
reason to call "...is a component part of..." a mass relationship.


I'm not talking about the distributivity of those examples. I'm
talking about the semantic meaning of "is a component of".

There is a reason to call "...is a component part of..." a mass
relationship. That's what a "mass" relationship is. We're not talking
about a "glob" or "amount" when we say "mass". We're talking about a
certain thing that is composed of aggregate things. Or what does
"mass" mean to you?




> > I don't see your position as equally sensible. If I were to say "ok,
> > there's no mass involved", I would have nothing like this to rely on.
> > I would have
> >
> > Alice is a referent of X
> > X surround the building < axiomic explanation of this is needed

As written, that doesn't make sense. If Alice is a referent of X, then
X has to be something like a word. But words don't surround buildings,
so X could not surround the building.


This is the closest I can come to a sensible explanation of your view.
This is the form of explanation that I'm looking for. So far, you've
offered "it just is - in 'the students surround the building', isn't
it clear that they do it non-distributively?", and that isn't an
explanation. In that case it is clear to /me/ that they are component
parts of a single mental entity that surrounds the building - and I've
shown how the mechanics that we both agree on can allow for this (but
not that this /is/ how things work).



What we want to say is

Alice is one of X
X surround the building.


What do you mean by "one of"? That she is one of the students?



where "X" is a plural variable, i.e. a variable with (possibly) more than one


What's a plural variable?


referent, and where "...surround..." is a relation that can be non-distributive


I point out that again, you're not offering any sort of explanation of
'non-distributive', you're simply assuming that it exists.


with respect to its first argument (also with respect to the second, but that's
not relevant in this example).


> > > For me {loi tadni} means "students", just like {lo tadni}, and
> > > the mass gadri in addition indicates that whatever is predicated
> > > of the students is predicated non-distributively. For you it means
> > > "a group of things that includes students among its members",
> > > which is something quite different.
> >
> > If you'd like, it can be "an entity composed of students", it doesn't
> > really matter. And yes, this would be quite different, because it
> > treats the students together as a different entity than each of the
> > students themselves.

Quite. You only accept referring to single entities, either to the single
entity that consists of all the students, or to each of the students at
a time. You won't admit a variable that has several referents, the students
themselves not a new entity consisting of the students, which is what
we need for plural predication.



You say this as if there was something to admit to. You haven't
provided an explanation, and my understanding works perfectly well
without needing a special "plural referent", so I don't need to fall
back on "hmm... well, this is the only option, so I guess it makes
sense".


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.