Re: bits & pieces to Jorge on quantifiers

[jorge@phyast.pitt.edu]

And:
> > If I can say veridically that {lo rorci be lo jbobau cu smoka lo
> > mapni} then descriptions are utterly useless.
> Why? This is a question of how we conceptualize the world. There is
> no objectivity. I wouldn't conceptualize the world in such a way as
> to consider that sentence accurate, but it is possible to do so.

Well, then you can conceptualize the world to make any sentence
accurate. You can conceptualize it to make sense of {ta blanu}
when pointing to a red thing. On hearing that, I would think that
either you don't understand Lojban or there's something wrong
with the eyes of one of us, but I would probably not consider that
you are conceptualizing the world differently. Isn't language a
convention for conceptualizing the world? We can't use the same
language for long and pretend to understand each other if we
are conceptualizing the world very differently. We'd be speaking
different languages.

> > I don't care about truth conditions. Let's just consider meaning.
> > Does {lo djacu} admit your sock as a referent?
> No, I don't think so. I don't think what I've been saying predicts
> it could.

Let me rephrase the question a little. Do you agree that
{lo'i solri be le terdi bei lo'e remna} is a singleton set?
Is {le solri ku joi le lunra} a (the) member of that set?

> > It has its own properties, and the relation with the properties
> > of its components varies with the kind of broda and the kind of
> > property. When you say that some water is on the floor you don't
> > care at all what each molecule is doing.
> Ah. Okay. What I think is that there is no objective criterion for
> deciding whether the mass has all or less than all properties of
> its consituents. In principle it can have all, but it needn't. It
> is, as it were, in the eye of the beholder.

Yes, I never disputed that. It has usually also new properties that
none of the components have. I just don't accept that it automatically
inherits each and every property of each and every component.

> > {lei ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno} means
> > something very different than {le ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno}.
> Yes it does, although I think they can both describe the same state
> of affairs (with from one to a zillion acts of carrying).

I don't see that. Assuming we are talking about a single piano, then
the sentence with {lei} describes one act of carrying, and the one
with {le} describes exactly three acts, one by each man. I don't see
how either may describe a zillion acts. (You might describe the same
act as a zillion acts, but then you have to use some other bridi.)

> But at any rate, the difference between your two sentences is not
> an argument for distinguishing masses from individuals. It could
> be taken as an argument for distinguishing intrinsically bounded
> entities from entities that are not intrinsically bounded.

I'm still not sure about the meaning of "bounded". To me,
{lei ci nanmu} refers to a single entity, and {le ci nanmu} refers
to three entities. The composition of those entities may not
matter, but the form {lei ci nanmu} tells me that the entity
is composed from three components that are nanmu.

> > > In work on English I have recognized
> > >   (i) unbounded entities
> > >   (ii) extrinsically bounded entities (e.g. {re lo djacu})
> > >   (iii) intrinsically bounded entities (e.g. {lo gerku})
> > > (in English at least these behave differently from each other in
> > > certain respects).
> > But in Lojban we can only distinguish (with gadri, at any rate)
> > individuals and masses (which are also individuals in themselves,
> > but they are masses as seen from the point of view of the components).
> Of course there are two relevant types of gadri; but I'm suggesting
> they don't naturally or consistently capture a genuine semantic
> distinction.

To me, the difference between {lei ci nanmu} and {le ci nanmu} is
quite genuine, and one that seems worth marking. Given that
there are three men in front of us, we may refer to them in two
different ways, taking them as three or as one entity.

The difference between {lo djacu} and {lo gerku} is more artificial
(from a Lojbanic point of view) given that there are things like
{lo blanu} that can be like both. In English we have nouns, and these
are properties of nouns. In Lojban there are no nouns as such, so
we can only refer to things using the predicates that those things
satisfy. The same object might end up satisfying predicates that
would correspond to all your three categories. That would mean that
your categories are not really categories of objects but rather
of referents.

> {lo} is sometimes (ii) and sometimes (iii),

What is {lo blanu}? Couldn't it even be (1)?

> depending on
> the sense of the gismu (e.g. djacu versus gerku}. {loi} is always
> unspecified between (i) and (ii).

How about something like {lei ci nanmu cu zmadu le pipno
le ka junta ke'a}. Why is {le pipno} any more intrinsically
bounded than {lei ci nanmu}?

> > > {loi broda} at present can be (i) or (ii). I think that may be
> > > unhealthy.
> > It can't be (ii). You can take fractions of a mass, but not multiples.
> On what grounds do you say this? I of course don't agree, but maybe
> you have compelling arguments.

I have no compelling arguments, only that {piro loi broda} is the mass
of all broda and therefore you can't have more than one of it.
{re loi broda} would be two masses of all broda, and I don't know what
that would be.

> > If you use {loi broda} or {lei broda} you are commited to the components.
> > It is them that satisfy the predicate {broda}.
> If that is correct, then {loi} is better understood as a group than
> as a mass. I find what you say inconsistent - and incompatible -
> with other things that have been said about {loi} (making it sound
> more massy), but I can accept that {loi} may not refer to a mass
> after all.

Well, I know that what I say is inconsistent with other things that
have been said, especially with the "any property of a component is a
property of the mass" bit.

But also what you say is inconsistent with other things that have been
said.

Obviously, the things that have been said are inconsistent with each
other. Your idea of mass is incompatible with fractionators. My idea
was formed from trying to make sense of the fractionators, which
requires that the inheritance of all properties be eschewed.

Which one is more useful I don't know. I find that what you could
say with yours is mostly covered by {lo'e}, but I don't know.

> > > > > >     pimu lei remna poi nenri le kumfa cu banzu le nu ky culno ry
> > > > > >     Half of the people in the room are enough to fill it.
> > > > > Well, maybe, in which case {pimu lo remna poi nenri le kumfa cu banzu
> > > > > le nu ky culno ry} or {pimu la ron poi nenri le kumfa cu banzu le nu
> > > > > ky culno ry} should be equally okay.
> > > > How do you say that the people fill
> > > > the room without implying that each of them does?
> > > {pi mu loi remna} - an extrinsically bounded entity.
> > But that's what I said in the first place!
> > (Well, I used {lei remna}, otherwise you get half of all humanity.)
> I know. Did I say somewhere I thought that was wrong? I may well have
> done, thinking foggily.

You said that it meant that {pimu la ron poi nenri le kumfa cu banzu
le nu ky culno ry} should be equally okay.

I thought that by that you meant that followed from what I said, but
now I realize that you probably meant that it is also meaningful.
Yes, I agree it is meaningful, but I disagree that it follows from
the other one.

Jorge