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

Re: [lojban] About plural 'ro'

Jorge Llambías, On 23/04/2010 03:53:

On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 10:16 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:

OK. But consider "The students are men and women", where you don't mean to
claim that anybody is both a man and a woman. I take that to mean "Each of
the predicates is-a-man and is-a-woman is predicated of some subcollectivity
of the students". Likewise, your example is "Each of {wore red caps,
surrounded the building} is predicated of some subcollectivity of the
students".


If all the men are on the left and all the women on the right, we could say:

   lo tadni cu (zu'a) nanmu gi'e (ri'u) ninmu
   "The students are (on the left) men and (on the right) women."

We don't need to actually say the spatial tense, and if they are all
mixed up in principle it would be the same, they are men wherever
there is a male student and women wherever there is a female student.


Yes, I see how your conception of things handles this case. My point, which I think you took, was that the conjoinability of distributive and nondistributive predicates evidences not the need to blur away the distributive/nondistributive distinction, as you had seemed to argue, but rather that incompatible predicates can be conjoined.


So the difficulty with Lojbanizing your English example doesn't really have
to do with problems with mixing 'collective' and 'distributive' predicates,
and the solution is one that would also handle my example.


It may well be just to different ways of explaining the same thing. I
find plural reference intuitive, while the introduction of
intermediate collections only so that we can predicate singularly of
them less so. But if it ends up being the same, it's all well.


I'm not sure yet if our conceptions are equivalent. Here's why I think they might differ. Suppose the referent(s) of ko'a is/are {A, B, C}. For me, "ko'a broda" would be true only if it's true of the collectivity {A, B, C} (where the criteria for being true of a collectivity will depend on the particular semantics of broda). For you, it would be true if it's true of ABC, AB, AC, BC, A, B, C. For my method to get that reading, you'd have to say "su'o subcollectivity of ko'a cu broda".


 To my way of
thinking, the ro'oi one would involve quantifying over subcollectivities of
<sumti> and the ro one would involve quantifying over primitive
subcollectivities of <sumti> (where primitive = a subcollectivy with no
subcollectivity but itself).


OK. I think of plural quantification as quantification over numbers.
The plural existential quantifier is "some number of" and the plural
universal is "any number of". Maybe "number" is the least
ontologically charged noun one can use if a noun must be used.


Yes (though "number" would be ripe for confusion if used pedagogically).


We know (or at least don't argue much about) how sumti such as ti, ta,
tu, mi, do, ri, ra, ko'a, di'u, etc. get their referents, which can be
one or many.

It's not clear to me that the referent can be many (rather than being a
collectivity, if that is different from being many).


A pluralist wouldn't say "the referent (of a given term) is many",
they would say "the referents (of a given term) are many".

The singularist would say "the referent (of a term) has many members"
(or "many subcollectivities"?)


OK.


But how does a sumti like "lo broda" get its referents?

No matter how it gets them, we know that they must satisfy the broda
predicate, i.e. "lo broda cu broda". Is it necessary that each of the
referents satisfy the predicate? No. Is it necessary that they satisfy
it all collectively? No. Is it necessary that they satisfy it in
groups of seven? No. In groups of varying numbers? No, that's not
necessary either. All that is required is that its referents must
satisfy the predicate "broda", in whatever arrangement they do it,
i.e. "lo broda" = "zo'e noi ke'a broda", it is a sumti whose
referent(s) satisfy the predicate broda.

OK. But it's plain to see how if there's only one referent then this is all
so much simpler.


Is it? How can you tell which collectivities are possible referents?
It seems to me you have to do the same work to explain, and in the end
collect all the referents into one collectivity. What's the
relationship between the referent or referents of "lo broda" and the
predicate "broda"? You say it brodas, I say they broda. Are we saying
anything different?


Your questions & answers and my answers:
Is it necessary that each of the referents satisfy the predicate? No. 

me: Yes; since there is a single referent, it must satisfy the predicate.
Is it necessary that they satisfy it all collectively? No. 

me: Yes, since 'collective' is the absence of quantification over subcollectivities of the referent.


Instead of saying "is it necessary that each of the referents of 'lo
broda' satisfies the predicate 'broda'? No." you will say "is it
necessary that each primitive subcollectivity of the referent of 'lo
broda' satisfies the predicate? No.", and so on. I don't see it is
simpler.


But for me, "{A,B,C} broda" makes no claims about subcollectivities.

--And.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.