[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- In jboske@yahoogroups.com, "And Rosta" <a.rosta@l...> wrote:
> So where you and I differ is with the counting types, which IMO are these:
>
> A. you can start to count them and you can stop counting at su'eci'ino
> B. you can start to count them and can't stop until ci'ipa
> C. you can't even start counting (but {da poi broda} still holds)
>
> Individual is A. Bit of Substance is B. Substance is C. Most noematic
> things are Substance/C.
Individual is A. Bit of Substance (which I call Substance) is B. Kind is C, and
includes Substance. (I'm not convinced da poi broda does hold, but
whatever.)
> Collective (as I understand it) is not a special counting type.
> Collectives can be either A or C. Member-of-Collective is A or
> B.
Collectives, I think, are still B, because both Collectives and bits of substance
are Masses (they have memberships); but I'll have to think some more.
> Without wanting to be unduly negative, (a) "the whole" can mean
> "every bit" in English,
But is this pragmatically conditioned? As in, it only does so when the
predicate is distributive?
> (b) taking it to mean something other
> than "every bit" simply does not square with it being a fraction
> and a quantifier,
I now think something deeply, deeply different is going on with fractional
quantifiers. They describe portions; they don't actually quantify jack. The
quantification isn't there, because their referents are really Kinds. Maybe of
different kinds to the Kind of Substance. As in, we have Kind of Atom, Kind of
Stuff, and then we have the fractionally quantified Kind of Substance of Stuff,
and the quantified Kind of Individual(s) of Atoms and Kind of Collection of
Atoms (I seek three mermaids, and so on.)
> (c) if it doesn't mean "every bit" then there
> is no difference between "the whole of X" and just "X".
As long as X is extensionally defined, that is indeed the case.
> > Especially not when I've used it to finally reconcile with
> > collectives and emergence
>
> Ideally the reconciliation would be one that is based on an
> internally consistent system rather than one that applies
> idiomatic meaning to constructions that could have had a
> sensical compositional meaning.
My story is now, there is a sensical compositional meaning, and it's rather
more intricate than we'd thought.
> > With respect, Jorge, that's bullshit. p. 130 of CLL says "the whole".
> > CLL makes explicit that collectives are always fractionally
> > quantifiable. And collectives are utterly analogous to sets (we
> > considered conflating them, and sometimes the gi'uste does); p. 131
> > explicitly says that pimu lo'i remna is a set. So lojbanmass is closed
> > under fractional quantification, just like individuals are closed under
> > natural number quantification
> Without going into a detailed response at this stage, you must
> consider what strategy to take when what the CLL says makes sense
> only as a stipulation of idiomatic meaning that overrides sensical
> compositional meaning.
Two strategies. One, I lump it, and say that's life (and lose you guys). Two, I
say CLL is shite, and lose SL-compatibility (which I will do only on extreme
brokenness, because otherwise it loses everyone else.) Three, I perform a
miracle.
I think I've got such a miracle cooking now; we'll see...
> When xorxes talks about his understanding of piro, he is talking
> about his understanding of what it would mean if CLL stipulations
> didn't substitute an idiomatic meaning for a compositional meaning.
>
> Here we are running up against exactly the problems I foresaw. I
> thought you could create a sensible gadri system ab initio, but
> not one that would be conformant with CLL.
You keep saying English is more logical than people give it credit for. Half the
glass of water means something. Lojban pimu loi djacu means the same
thing. It doesn't mean what you would do in straightforward extensional
quantification using 1/2. It describes the portion. If Lojban is broken here, so is
English.
> Sure, but me and xorxes have been enticed into these exchanges by
> the appearance of you trying to create a rational system. If you
> say "Sorry -- CLL makes a balls-up here, but it's got to stay",
> then I'd probably be better off just backing off and leaving it
> to you to do on your own.
That is an an acceptable outcome of the Yuletide accord: we can part ways if
you think I'm doing crap. But I think I've got something now...
> Sorry -- I can't remember which messages this was in. It wasn't
> a single thread. But we've been talking one another in and out
> of two coherent positions:
>
> I. piro != every bit, & is equivalent to the absence of quantification,
> so should always be the default
> II. piro = every bit, is not equivalent to the absence of quantification,
> and should not be a default
>
> Currently we favour II, because it is far more consistent with
> compositionality.
I don't think what I'm now saying fits this, and I think it's a false extensionalist
dichotomy.
> > I define a substance as an infinitesimal collective, then. I can deal
> > with that. This may end up meaning that while there are three
> > ontological types --- atom, stuff, group --- there are only two
> > counting types: individual... and mass
>
> That's an improvement. But what is the counting type of the set
> {Nick, And, Xorxes}? Neither individual nor mass, IMO.
... or both. What count do you want? One, Whole, or Three?