kabal wyches?

What about if a non-hobbyist buys a model?
Do the three sentences rule that out to your mind?
It sounds like you're saying it does.

==============================
Here are the sentences again - I suppose my real question is if now the fourth or third sentence is forced to be untrue.


Modeling is a popular hobby.
Models are made of cars, planes, and trains.
Each model is painted by the hobbyist that owns it.
Not all models are owned by hobbyists.

The three sentences clearly don't rule out anything, it would just be the case that the third was possibly false - though this may depend on what happens to the model (e.g. a non-hobbyist may buy it as a gift for a hobbyist, but then once given it is owned by a hobbyist).

I'm inclined to say sentences three and four are inconsistent, assuming same context in each case.

Are you going to tell us how you understand it then?

I see it as possible for all four sentences to be true.
Even by your definition of how each is used I'm not sure why you don't - you have indicated that you don't think 'each' means, by definition 'all' but can mean 'all of a given subset'
Why do you not see 'owned by hobbyist' as a subset of all models in existence in the above four sentences?

And did you just use the royal 'we'  

I see it as possible for each of the four sentences to be true, but not for all of them to be true together.

Note that 'each X' does mean 'all Xs', not 'all of a given subset of Xs'. I don't see where you think I said otherwise. It is possible that the Xs in question are a subset of Ys (e.g. 'each child who came to the party' is a subset of children generally, which in turn is a subset of people). But what you're saying is that 'each X' can mean a subset of Xs, which is what I've been denying all along and which I still don't think you've provided evidence for; I don't see anyone else using the term that way.

And I didn't use the word 'we' at all. I did use 'us', rather than 'me', but I take that to be entirely appropriate - this is not a private communication, so others may be reading.

But why can sentence 3 and 4 not coexist.
One notes that all models hobbyists own are painted.
One notes that not all models are owned by hobbyists.
What's the conflict?

Why can sentence 3 not be X of Y where X is 'models hobbyists own' and Y is 'all models'?

Ben_S wrote:

And I didn't use the word 'we' at all. I did use 'us', rather than 'me', but I take that to be entirely appropriate - this is not a private communication, so others may be reading.

My understanding is that the royal we is a synonym for the Majestic plural, so saying "I didn't use the word 'we' at all" is just being deliberately dense. I also don't think Thor was making an unreasonable assumption given how long it's just been the two of you writing. At this point, reading the thread feels like eavesdropping on a grammar and/or logic class.

Anyway, sorry for the interruption.

1) Modeling is a popular hobby.
2) Models are made of cars, planes, and trains.
3) Each model is painted by the hobbyist that owns it.
4) Not all models are owned by hobbyists.

Sentence 3 is not 'all models hobbyists own are painted'. It could have been replaced with some other sentence, like:
3a) Each model owned by a hobbyist is painted.

But that would be a different sentence, with a different meaning. What sentence 3 actually says 'each model', not 'each model owned by a hobbyist', so X = models, because this is what the sentence says.

If you can interpret sentences to mean whatever you like, then why can sentence 3 not be about bananas?

Ben_S wrote:

If you can interpret sentences to mean whatever you like, then why can sentence 3 not be about bananas?

 

What if we introduced a new sentence?

1) Modeling is a popular hobby.
2) Models are made of cars, planes, and trains.
3) Hobbyists buy many models.
4) Each model is painted by the hobbyist that owns it.
5) Not all models are owned by hobbyists.

Does that change the meaning of sentence 4 now?
Does that make sentence 5 tenable?
Conversely, what about this;

1) Modeling is a popular hobby.
2) Models are made of cars, planes, and trains.
3) Each model is painted by the hobbyist that owns it.
4) Hobbyists buy many models.
5) Not all models are owned by hobbyists.

Does that change the meaning of sentence 3,a nd does it allow sentence 5 to become tenable?

I don't know what we should say about one sentence altering the meaning of another. Take:

6) I'll meet you at the bank.

This is ambiguous between referring to the river bank and financial bank. But suppose I follow it with:

7) I need to get some cash from the ATM.

Now you can work out which meaning of 6 was my intention, but does this change the meaning of 6? Or should we say that 6 (the sentence) can still have either meaning, but you now know which was my meaning?

I'd say that you could say:
4) Each model is painted by the hobbyist that owns it.

And then follow that up with:
5a) Well, not all models, because of course some are owned by non-hobbyists.

I'm not inclined to regard that as altering the meaning of 4, but rather correcting it - the speaker initially overstates his meaning (or the truth), then partly retracts it. Maybe your 5 can be understood along similar lines.

I'm not sure what this contributes to our original discussion though. It seems that I can say either:
i) No, the later sentences do not change the meaning of the earlier ones, so there is inconsistency between 3-5 in your examples.
or
ii) Yes, later sentences can alter the meaning of earlier ones, but this is immaterial since there is no later 'not all Raiders are owned by Kabals' in the Codex. That such a sentence could have altered the meaning of the sentence under discussion does not mean that the meaning of that sentence is altered absent such a sentence (if it was, then the later sentence wouldn't be altering the meaning).

If you state ii) then I can go back to pointing out that the original sentence is unclear as to definite meaning, and thus make my point.

If you state i) then I would want deeper explanation.

I'm not sure what 'deeper explanation' I can give for i) aside from what I just said - sentences have the meaning they do. A subsequent sentence may tell me what you meant (by your previous sentences), but doesn't change what they mean - hence an apparent contradiction should be understood as you initially misstating and then correcting yourself.

As for ii), this is the view that sentences can change meaning, but I don't see how this implies that the original sentence is 'unclear as to definite meaning'. On this view, the sentence (before it is followed up with another) has one definite meaning. A subsequent sentence could change that to a different definite meaning. But, in either case, there's a definite, unambiguous meaning - it's just that which it is depends on whether there's another sentence.

You've been less forthcoming on your view. Is it that 3 (Each model is painted by the hobbyist that owns it) on its own lacks definite meaning? Then you think that adding 5 (Not all models are owned by hobbyists) changes the meaning of 3, presumably giving it one definite meaning?

How, in that case, do you give 3 the other (or another) definite meaning? Would you need to follow it with another sentence saying 'And by that I do mean that all models are owned by hobbyists'?

Ben_S wrote:

I'm not sure what 'deeper explanation' I can give for i) aside from what I just said - sentences have the meaning they do. A subsequent sentence may tell me what you meant (by your previous sentences), but doesn't change what they mean - hence an apparent contradiction should be understood as you initially misstating and then correcting yourself.

So we're still towing the 'absolutism' line in that how the sentence is used within the context of the paragraph and page has no meaning - except even you have argued otherwise sine that's the basis of why the sentence refers to all Raiders, and not just those being customized by Kabals.

Ben_S wrote:

As for ii), this is the view that sentences can change meaning, but I don't see how this implies that the original sentence is 'unclear as to definite meaning'. On this view, the sentence (before it is followed up with another) has one definite meaning. A subsequent sentence could change that to a different definite meaning. But, in either case, there's a definite, unambiguous meaning - it's just that which it is depends on whether there's another sentence.

And yet this would support that sentence context has veracity and also that 'each' by itself is open to interpretation - which is the stance I hold.

Ben_S wrote:

You've been less forthcoming on your view. Is it that 3 (Each model is painted by the hobbyist that owns it) on its own lacks definite meaning?

It depends on how it is used, so I suppose my answer is 'yes'.

Ben_S wrote:

Then you think that adding 5 (Not all models are owned by hobbyists) changes the meaning of 3, presumably giving it one definite meaning?

It applies further meaning to 3, yes.

Ben_S wrote:

How, in that case, do you give 3 the other (or another) definite meaning? Would you need to follow it with another sentence saying 'And by that I do mean that all models are owned by hobbyists'?

If I wanted to say that all models everywhere are owned by hobbyists...I would probably say it like that, to make my meaning clear. I wouldn't use 'each' and then talk about conversions in the same sentence, which could alter the perception of what I was talking about and make the sentence unclear.