On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 3:21 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:
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 me, it will be true if it's true of A, B, C, (where the criteria
for being true of three things 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.
No, just of A, B, C.
Which is not to say true of A, true of B and true of C. It only needs
to be true of A, B, C, where the criteria for being true of three
things will depend on the particular semantics of broda.
For my method to get that reading, you'd have to
say "su'o subcollectivity of ko'a cu broda".
You seem to be describing here "su'oi ko'a cu broda", not "ko'a broda".
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.
But the equivalent question asked of you would not be the identically
phrased question, it would be:
Is it necessary that each of the primitive subcollectivities 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.
OK. But then your "collective" is not quite what I meant by
"collectively". I meant, is it necessary that all the referents broda
together? For example, if it's about carrying a piano, is it necessary
that they all carry it together? In your terms, is it necessary that
all the members of the collective broda together? If it's about being
a man, is it necessary that they are all a man together? In other
words, I'm asking details about the criteria you mention above, and
the answer will probably be: there is no general answer, we need to
look at the specific predicate and the specific context.
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.
Neither does "A, B, C broda" for me make any claims about A, or about
B, or about C, or about AB, or about BC, or about AC (or about ABC to
the extent that it may be different from A, B, C. The claim is about
the three. That's why both of our answers would be "No, it's not
necessary". (In particular cases, the criteria for evaluating the
claim may involve looking at what happens with A, or with B, or with
AB, etc, but there is no claim about anything other that A, B, C.
mu'o mi'e xorxes