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

[John E Clifford <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

--- Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 7/11/06, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > Since this sounds a little like one pseudo-Whorfian hypothesis case, I give the usual counter:
> > maybe people tend to make a strong divide between 1 and >1 because so many languages have a
> > singular/plural distinction.  Causation is hard to work out when the two phenomena are known
> only simultaneously.
> >
> 
> Like I said, it's something to consider. I currently don't have a
> proof that this distinction proves my theory, but it is something that
> seems very relevant. To me it seems natural that the distinction is,
> and can only be, that our mind treats "a dog", and "the dogs" using
> different structures (and not by 'loading', say, 1 identity that is a
> dog, and then 152 identities that are each a dog), though both are
> singular, all in the way that I described.
> 
> You should note that I don't go about repeatedly asserting that this
> is the case, and that my position does not rely on something that
> doesn't have a proof, as this doesn't, in order to be sensible. I
> would like for proponents of the pluralist position to do the same.
> This special plural-singular "variable" thing really isn't proven. I
> don't even see how it can make sense, unless there is a perception of
> the mind that differs drastically from mine.

Promissory note (building all the details to suit your particular version of singularism takes a
while): there are not special plural variables, just variables which may take any (positive)
number of referents.

> On 7/11/06, Jorge Llamb�as <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/11/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Are these 'dual/trial numbers' as pervasive as the "1 vs >1"
> > > distinction in those languages?
> >
> > The grammatical distinction in English (and the other languages I'm familiar
> > with) is not exactly between 1 and >1, but rather between 1 and non-1. We
> > do use the plural for <1 too: "zero zebras", "0.5 kilograms", "minus one
> > degrees", etc.
> >
> 
> Yes, 1 and !1 is a better way to phrase it. I thought that it was
> obvious that this is what I was getting at, considering my
> explanations. I did go on about how a singular entity is conceived in
> a way that is quite different from a numbered entity.
>
Not sure I understand this; there are only singular entities but sometimes several of them are
taken together (which singularist think of as constituting another entity).
 
> On 7/11/06, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I confess I haven't been reading this thread, whose interminability reminds me of the olden
> days of Lojban list. So forgive me if I repeat things that have already been said.
> >
> > 1. I believe that there are implicational universals governing grammatical number
> distinctions, namely if there are only two categories they are singular and plural, if there is
> a trial then there is a dual, and so forth. For the unlazy, see Corbett's _Number_ (reference on
> the Wiki page).
> >
> > 2. It was my immersion in lojbanology that made me realize that there is something somehow
> fundamental to the singular--plural distinction, in that only plurals, and not singulars, are
> sensitive to a collective--distributive distinction.
> 
> Good point. I'd like to know how this is accounted for in the
> pluralist system (or rather, the system that opposes mine). If not
> because of how I describe things to work, then why is it that it is
> strange and perhaps impossible to treat singulars collectively?

Actually, the problem turns out to be to treat singulars distributively, but even then the problem
is just that the two are equivalent: whatever is true of an individual distributively is true of
it collectively and vv.  So it is hard (pointless?) to figure out which is meant.
 
> >
> > 3. It may be hard to prove that typological patterns across languages reflect human cognition
> rather than human cognition reflecting unexplained typological patterns. But the former
> (counterwhorfian) direction of causation is more explanatory.
> 
> I assume that language is based on cognition. Yes, a mind may be
> affected by the lack of certain relationships, but I think that we
> have a diverse enough number of languages to say that it is strange
> that the distinction between 1 vs !1 is so pervasive/universal. I find
> it hard to believe that some lack of a 1/2 vs !1/2 concept 1000000
> years ago is what is responsible for this global 1 vs !1 distinction.

"global" is a little strong, maybe "widespread" and maybe more common than any alternative: duals,
trials or no distinction -- or all of them together.  Note that for Sapir-Whorf, all of these
except the no distinction case poastulate an underlying SAE-type world view of countable isolated
determinate objects.

> >
> > --And.
> >
> 
> 
> xorxes had asked:
> 
> > How does your mind manage to process:
> >   ro le panono tadni cu dasni lo mapku
> > then?
> 
> I'd like to ask the same of my opposition, of those that think that in
> our mind, there is only those 152 students, and nothing else. I argue
> that you can't have 152 students in your mind in the first place,
> which makes this perception of language inconsistent with how the mind
> works.

To which the reply largely is that there is no particular reason -- even given Sapir-Whorf -- to
think that language reflects in any direct way the way the mind works (whatever that may mean). we
can clearly talk about 100 students without thinking about each of them in full individuality and
without thinking about some set that encompasses them (unless you insist that thinking about them
in this way just IS thinking about some set that encompasses them).



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.