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

["Maxim Katcharov" <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com>]

On 6/6/06, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/6/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 6/6/06, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > There are never any hidden outer quantifiers from my
> > > point of view.
> >
> > I'm not talking about hidden. I'm talking about there being one.
>
> That's what I mean by hidden, that it's supposedly there but you can't
> see/hear it.

So when you say "lo cribe", you don't mean any bears at all?

> > When
> > I say "lo tadni", there's some number in that inner, and some number
> > in that outer.
>
> When I say it, there isn't, especially an outer one. An inner one is less
> relevant, and it doesn't matter much if you assume there is one.

Ok, so what does "lo tadni" mean? "The bears" quite definitely implies
there being some quantity of bears.

> > > > > {le tadni} always refers the same things, but the slot it fills could be
> > > > > marked as distributive or non-distributive, yes.
> > > >
> > > > No, not marked. We've been through this. Slots are not marked for anything.
> > >
> > > We'll just have to agree to disagree about that then.
> >
> > Agreeing to disagree is agreeing to stop arguing.
>
> Yes.
>
> > If you want to stop
> > arguing, that's fine. I think I've shown quite clearly that, even by
> > your standards, in "x1 sruri x2" (and in all other relationships) x1
> > is not marked for anything, and x2 is not automatically marked for
> > distributivity (bunch-individually) or non-distributivity
> > (bunch-together).
>
> I never said x2 or x1 are automatically marked for anything. Both can
> be marked either way.

I guess the underlying difference here is that you think the slot
({tersum}?) is marked, while I think that the sumti is marked.

 lu'o le tadni cu sruri lo dinju
translating to
 lo gunma be [le tadni] cu sruri lo dinju
vs.
 [da poi sruri lo dinju] cu gunma [le tadni]


In the end, I'm fine with either (as long as we define how this
happens - that is, offer a method of expansion), but I think that
marking the sumti is a better way to go. How would you go about
properly expanding {loi tadni cu bevri loi stizu}, for example?

However, you seem to be against using gunma at all. We'll have to
resolve that first.

> I think we've been basically repeating ourselves for the last twenty or
> thirty posts, and it's fairly clear that neither of us is going to convince
> the other of anything, that's why I said we might just agree to disagree.
> I'm not getting much out of this, but I don't mind repeating a bit more
> if you are getting something out of it.

Repeating ourselves for the past 20 posts? I've asked you a question:
explain how Alice relates to the students that surround the building,
in a way that is different from how she relates to the students that
wear hats. For the past 10 posts, you've avoided answering this,
perhaps because you miss the importance: if you can show me this
relationship, and there are no flaws in it (like there have been in
your last two demonstrations), then I will give up my position that
there is nothing more than "mass" and "bunch-individually".

> > > No other thing besides the students themselves is needed for me.
> >
> > Ok, now prove/show/describe it.
>
> There's no "it", just them, the students. What kind of description
> do you want? They are human beings, most of them in their early
> twenties, of both sexes, grubby clothes, what else?
>
> > If no "other thing" is needed, then
> > explain what the relationship between the students and the
> > surroundment of the building is. How it differs from my "mass"
> > interpretation, and how it differs from the "bunch-individually"
> > interpretation. It is different, isn't it?
>
> Is it? The only difference seems to be that you only admit
> non-distributive properties for them, while I think they can
> (and indeed do) have both distributive and non-distributive
> properties at the same time.

What has non-distributive properties? The 26 students that surround
the building? Consider:

We have 26 students in blue shirts stand on 26 marks (the letters A-Z)
arranged so that they surround the building. We tell them to go
inside, and call out 26 students in red shirts to stand on the marks.
Now, both the blue students and the red students had the
"non-distributive" property of surrounding the building, correct?

Now, who or what really had this property? Each of the 26 students?
No: the 26 students together. Well, what does that mean? Why is it
that I can't swap blue-A, with red-A, and then say that "[the 25 blue
students and the 1 red student] surrounded the building" ({...sruri lo
dinju})? Because they're not of the same group/mass.

Or perhaps you have an alternate explanation that doesn't involve group/mass?

> > > {le tadni cu ckaji ge lo ka ro ke'a dasni lo mapku gi lo ka lu'o ke'a
> > > sruri le dinju}
> > >
> > > "The students (and I'm not talking about anything but the students here) have
> > > the property that (1) they wear hats individually and (2) they surround the
> > > building together."
> > >
> > > It's the very same students that have both properties.
> >
> > Ok. So it's the very same students that surround the building
> > individually, and that compose the group that surrounds the building.
> > Right?
>
> They wear the hats individually and surround the building together, yes.

No, I mean that they compose the *group* that surrounds the building.
I expect you to disagree with this.

> > You keep using words that we haven't decided on the definitions of.
>
> They are ordinary English words, I don't mean them in any technical
> sense.

I mean lu'o, lo, loi.

> > The issue is what lo means, what lu'o means, what loi means.
>
> lo: converts a selbri into a sumti, selecting the selbri's x1 argument.
> loi: like {lo}, and in addition it marks the slot which the sumti occupies
>      as non-distributive
> lu'o: It marks a sumti so that the slot it occupies is non-distributive.

(wait, which one is the one that marks it as distributive?)

Here is a way that the "marking of a slot for distributivity" can be
explained/expanded:

 lu'o le tadni cu sruri lo dinju
 lei tadni cu sruri lo dinju
expands to
 [da poi sruri lo dinju] cu gunma [le tadni]

Perhaps you have an equally sensible way to expand it? Perhaps even a
way that does not involve {gunma}?

> > You seem
> > to be using your interpretation of those words to prove your
> > interpretation of those words.
>
> A definition is a definition, it doesn't have to be proved.

We're arguing about the definition of a word. I think that loi/lu'o do
one thing (mass), you think that they do another. Offering an example
that uses your definition of the word doesn't help me.

> > How on earth does {lu'o ke'a sruri...}
> > tell me anything about what relationship your lu'o entails? Does it
> > transform ke'a into a mass?
>
> It marks the ke'a-slot as non-distributive. You can view it as transforming
> whatever ke'a is reserving a place for into a mass if you like. I prefer not
> to, but I don't think there is any problem in doing it that way.

So you would consider

 [da poi sruri lo dinju] cu gunma [le tadni]

to be a correct and complete expanded form of

 lu'o le tadni cu sruri lo dinju
 lei tadni cu sruri lo dinju

correct?

> > > If we are both happy with {le nanla cu bevri le stizu le purdi} to describe
> > > a situation where the boys took the chairs to the garden but we don't
> > > care whether each boy took one chair or they took chairs in some other
> >
> > No, we aren't both happy. I'm happy with perhaps {loi nanla cu bevri
> > loi stizu le pa purdi}, because I can choose to see them as a
> > group/mass that carries over another group/mass.
>
> Including a situation where each boy carries just one chair?
> What do you think of {loi tadni cu dasni loi mapku}?

If each boy carried one chair, I would likely see it as {lo nanla cu
bevri lo stizu} instead. Otherwise, I can see it in a general sense,
not care how many boys or how many chairs there really are, just think
of both as masses, and say {loi nanla cu bevri loi stizu}. But if I
clearly saw that each boy carried a chair (as, say, each soldier in a
formation might carry a rifle), then why wouldn't I say it with {lo}?


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.