Received: from mail-gg0-f191.google.com ([209.85.161.191]:59432) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1TqvDj-0004LQ-Cr; Thu, 03 Jan 2013 16:33:25 -0800 Received: by mail-gg0-f191.google.com with SMTP id e5sf9272640ggk.8 for ; Thu, 03 Jan 2013 16:33:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:x-received:received-spf :mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post :list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type; bh=aN7xC/5jHNATxoc/Xm1tW+9XzFMXs37MA82kYdffGYw=; b=MnYx84VuPrbC84EesAwCULIL/gUqR111SnMZ3iq5ObbXlf4K1HbHcm9dPiuGGByPGf vXEFE9LV5j16DmY1ttm4BB21/Pms+OnkGATzMP4lnUVQcUsLk8OIqmoqGtXsI4IqBXFe ZSrvTy2EbzxvhXtCvMu1UEC99hifkVZcklWNj1gOTY5o7E97gqQhIx/NTqAD2jrWUXQ6 Qz/MdwUE/XL6wSJieg2JIg6WaVupI49E4rDAf9m/Fg+s5x7MV0CaHV3W6JSdO3IxFlNr ztz/gU2VqbBsgpA7znZuPfFbbzpwNyLIpMZ5/XcJ2tlA4K0oZyEI7/uVrHairKDr26W7 OKDQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:x-received:received-spf :mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post :list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type; bh=aN7xC/5jHNATxoc/Xm1tW+9XzFMXs37MA82kYdffGYw=; b=vZ95y8PEYmpmiTmoliY4fcUCyBKwkagyz89dEepl6aoATydHhSm0+g+kAYhoH+wW3d N5niHjp+5Ytv6QrtjMD0qfBtJ0Lo49gY17H5SThHnC9/82gMrITtZ6keg1s/RLXlLWo7 9m3o8y+Gw59rBW4BnASBWbXA/gK6S73ymYDz5zuMbj3KqMpb7EPer1mE8QUccwqQHy/i rypM4Z3M32TLcXBAW7v64UyPvycdoofRMD/MQ5+ZJr3hiottCB1KsR6KVvE+9y4M7zux XTCN7chAZr4V9HevufXfGsPz6mxy/OYpnr+ScX7nCrq4BFzyNkVgZskvDnM2fhi9QRKQ w4SQ== X-Received: by 10.49.15.38 with SMTP id u6mr8515338qec.8.1357259584736; Thu, 03 Jan 2013 16:33:04 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.49.94.103 with SMTP id db7ls7690246qeb.69.gmail; Thu, 03 Jan 2013 16:33:02 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.58.88.7 with SMTP id bc7mr26361624veb.40.1357259582843; Thu, 03 Jan 2013 16:33:02 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.58.88.7 with SMTP id bc7mr26361623veb.40.1357259582816; Thu, 03 Jan 2013 16:33:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vb0-f45.google.com (mail-vb0-f45.google.com [209.85.212.45]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u2si8654774vdi.2.2013.01.03.16.33.02 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 03 Jan 2013 16:33:02 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of blindbravado@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.45 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.45; Received: by mail-vb0-f45.google.com with SMTP id p1so16178147vbi.32 for ; Thu, 03 Jan 2013 16:33:02 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.218.197 with SMTP id hr5mr73931068vcb.8.1357259582681; Thu, 03 Jan 2013 16:33:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.13.197 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 16:33:02 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 19:33:02 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Context and precision (was:Re: [lojban-beginners] Special reference, underspecified) From: Ian Johnson To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: blindbravado@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of blindbravado@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.45 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=blindbravado@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec53968644b322204d26b9f75 X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / --bcaec53968644b322204d26b9f75 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Jonathan Jones wrote: > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Ian Johnson wrote: > >> No. I think it should mean exactly three. The difference is that I think >>> "exactly three" should only be considered within context. If we're talking >>> about the house next door, and I say {ci prenu} = {ci da poi prenu}, it >>> should mean that there are exactly three people in the context of the house >>> next door, not that there are exactly three people, in the whole of time >>> and space, real and imagined, etc..., whatever the scope of "universe of >>> discourse" is. >>> >> This answer isn't really {na go'i} so much as {na'i}. I was saying to >> choose a fixed universe of discourse, then decide what an outer quantifier >> means. In other words I wanted to simplify the issue of outer quantifiers >> by decoupling it from the issue of determining the universe of discourse. >> You're saying that the universe of discourse shrinks and expands rapidly >> from sentence to sentence, and that the idea of holding one constant isn't >> reasonable. I think this is troubling in general, partly because everything >> done in logic depends on a background universe of discourse. In other words >> the first thing you do is say what you're talking about precisely (for >> example, the real number system), and then you start saying things about >> it. Rejecting this idea is sa'u illogical, but not necessarily irrational >> nor necessarily damaging. >> > > I would say situation to situation, not sentence to sentence, because > context isn't determined by what is said, but by the environment it is said > in. Strictly speaking "environment" isn't really the right word, but you > can't define context as "context". > The way you described it, it sounded like it would be perfectly > > And as far as logic wrt Lojban is concerned, Lojban is logical only in the > sense that its grammar is built from predicate logic. Beyond that, it is no > more nor less logical than any other language. > No, it's not true that just its grammar is built from predicate logic. If that were literally true, its semantics could be not at all tied to predicate logic, whereas the definitions of things like {da} clearly reflect semantic ties to predicate logic. People use the term "grammar" in a terrible way, grammar alone is just structure, it doesn't mean anything. Instead they use "grammar" to refer to grammar in combination with "structural semantics", which are essentially invariants, aspects of semantics that persist within a given grammatical structure no matter what components you put in place. {lo broda cu broda} is one. At any rate, I reject the premise that the grammar of Lojban is built from predicate logic only for it to completely throw out the semantic ideas of predicate logic at random. I think it's built this way so that it will be good at expressing the things that predicate logic is good at expressing. Quantifiers are one such thing, but only if you are reasonably careful about the universe of discourse. > > >> >>> >>>> My problem with making the "verbosity and precision correlate tightly" >>>> doctrine into law is that precise statements all vanish for being too >>>> verbose. It's like pedantic English, you can be very careful in English if >>>> you try really hard, but we don't speak that way, and those that try are >>>> criticized for sounding awkward. >>> >>> >>> I'm not sure that's true, and I'm not certain that's really much of a >>> problem if it is. I highly doubt that requiring more words to be more >>> precise- which, by the way, is already true in the vast majority of Lojban >>> as it is- automatically makes higher precision statements cease to be made. >>> >> I phrased that the way I phrased it for a reason. *Insisting* that >> verbosity and precision correlate tightly makes it so every precise >> statement is necessarily verbose. I think part of the point of Lojban is >> that logic cleanly and succinctly expresses certain ideas (quantifiers, for >> example, and in particular ro, su'o, and to a lesser extent pa), and by >> reworking ordinary language carefully we can bring everyday ideas into that >> structure. >> > > I don't like the phrase "every precise statement is necessarily verbose". > I would agree with "more precise statements are necessarily more verbose", > however. A tight correlation means that the desired amount of precision > would require a higher degree of verbosity, but not that every precise > statement would be too verbose to actually be used, which is what it seems > you are asserting. > > >> I also don't think your comparison with English is very on the ball, but >>> that's neither here nor there. >>> >> It's an exaggeration, but I think the basic point is valid. That is, once >> you get to a certain level of verbosity, your listener tunes out. The >> threshold is probably higher in Lojban because the grammar is both simpler >> and less obtrusive, but it's still there. >> > > Well, certainly. I just don't think it's as big a problem as you seem to. > Also, what I'm suggesting isn't a radical change from the way things are: > the vast majority of Lojban does have a strong correlation between > verbosity and precision, I'm just saying this correlation should be "all", > not "most". > The previous two paragraphs contradict one another. mi'e la latro'a mu'o -- 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. --bcaec53968644b322204d26b9f75 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Jonathan Jones <= span dir=3D"ltr"><eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:47 PM= , Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com> wrote:
No. I think it should mean exactly three. The differe= nce is that I think "exactly three" should only be considered wit= hin context. If we're talking about the house next door, and I say {ci = prenu} =3D {ci da poi prenu}, it should mean that there are exactly three p= eople in the context of the house next door, not that there are exactly thr= ee people, in the whole of time and space, real and imagined, etc..., whate= ver the scope of "universe of discourse" is.
This answer isn't really {na go'= ;i} so much as {na'i}. I was saying to choose a fixed universe of disco= urse, then decide what an outer quantifier means. In other words I wanted t= o simplify the issue of outer quantifiers by decoupling it from the issue o= f determining the universe of discourse. You're saying that the univers= e of discourse shrinks and expands rapidly from sentence to sentence, and t= hat the idea of holding one constant isn't reasonable. I think this is = troubling in general, partly because everything done in logic depends on a = background universe of discourse. In other words the first thing you do is = say what you're talking about precisely (for example, the real number s= ystem), and then you start saying things about it. Rejecting this idea is s= a'u illogical, but not necessarily irrational nor necessarily damaging.=

I would say situation to situation,= not sentence to sentence, because context isn't determined by what is = said, but by the environment it is said in. Strictly speaking "environ= ment" isn't really the right word, but you can't define contex= t as "context".
The way you described it, it sounded like it = would be perfectly

And as far as logic wrt Lojban is concerned, Lojban is logical only in = the sense that its grammar is built from predicate logic. Beyond that, it i= s no more nor less logical than any other language.
No, it's not true that just its grammar is built from predicate lo= gic. If that were literally true, its semantics could be not at all tied to= predicate logic, whereas the definitions of things like {da} clearly refle= ct semantic ties to predicate logic. People use the term "grammar"= ; in a terrible way, grammar alone is just structure, it doesn't mean a= nything. Instead they use "grammar" to refer to grammar in combin= ation with "structural semantics", which are essentially invarian= ts, aspects of semantics that persist within a given grammatical structure = no matter what components you put in place. {lo broda cu broda} is one.

At any rate, I reject the premise that the grammar of Lojban is built f= rom predicate logic only for it to completely throw out the semantic ideas = of predicate logic at random. I think it's built this way so that it wi= ll be good at expressing the things that predicate logic is good at express= ing. Quantifiers are one such thing, but only if you are reasonably careful= about the universe of discourse.
=A0
=A0
My problem with making the "verbosity and precision correlate tightly&= quot; doctrine into law is that precise statements all vanish for being too= verbose. It's like pedantic English, you can be very careful in Englis= h if you try really hard, but we don't speak that way, and those that t= ry are criticized for sounding awkward.

I'm not sure that's true, and I'm not certain th= at's really much of a problem if it is. I highly doubt that requiring m= ore words to be more precise- which, by the way, is already true in the vas= t majority of Lojban as it is- automatically makes higher precision stateme= nts cease to be made.
I phrased that the way I phrased it for a rea= son. Insisting that verbosity and precision correlate tightly makes = it so every precise statement is necessarily verbose. I think part of the p= oint of Lojban is that logic cleanly and succinctly expresses certain ideas= (quantifiers, for example, and in particular ro, su'o, and to a lesser= extent pa), and by reworking ordinary language carefully we can bring ever= yday ideas into that structure.

I don't like the phrase "e= very precise statement is necessarily verbose". I would agree with &qu= ot;more precise statements are necessarily more verbose", however. A t= ight correlation means that the desired amount of precision would require a= higher degree of verbosity, but not that every precise statement would be = too verbose to actually be used, which is what it seems you are asserting.<= br> =A0
= I also don't think your comparison with English is very on the ball, bu= t that's neither here nor there.
It's an exaggeration, but I think t= he basic point is valid. That is, once you get to a certain level of verbos= ity, your listener tunes out. The threshold is probably higher in Lojban be= cause the grammar is both simpler and less obtrusive, but it's still th= ere.

Well, certainly. I just don't t= hink it's as big a problem as you seem to. Also, what I'm suggestin= g isn't a radical change from the way things are: the vast majority of = Lojban does have a strong correlation between verbosity and precision, I= 9;m just saying this correlation should be "all", not "most&= quot;.
The previous two paragraphs contradict one an= other.

mi'e la latro'a mu'o

--
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@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
--bcaec53968644b322204d26b9f75--