From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed May 10 15:15:08 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 10 May 2006 15:15:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FdwxH-00023X-1R for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 10 May 2006 15:14:51 -0700 Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com ([64.233.162.196]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FdwxD-00023Q-HC for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 10 May 2006 15:14:50 -0700 Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id n29so33611nzf for ; Wed, 10 May 2006 15:14:46 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=PWA6BAdWI/GlLav1edixItFxCpvXoSqQON6v3g8yJSJnUdDeaxN196OdoEKDSqw0jQFJWEm+GUPv8yYpAXSZVwCxlDnMvgjf1E2jp0+o0G2SDZtH2oCAy5AgyYfFO/cfrXsJS9oYYGczLDipeXzhcgXpxgRIubP6hGpAVNXPSNk= Received: by 10.36.220.75 with SMTP id s75mr109011nzg; Wed, 10 May 2006 15:14:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.153.14 with HTTP; Wed, 10 May 2006 15:14:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 16:14:46 -0600 From: "Maxim Katcharov" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le In-Reply-To: <925d17560605100646o576097b7n1eb81fa3d7c681df@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060509160830.76878.qmail@web81310.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <925d17560605091911q49d9049fk74d621c05ae2a62f@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605100646o576097b7n1eb81fa3d7c681df@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11466 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: maxim.katcharov@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On 5/10/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 5/10/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > Well, the point is that you /can/ be as precise as you want to. In the > > pen example, I restrict fully, right down to that single pen that I'm > > thinking of, using {ro __ ro vica cu penbi}. There's no need to be > > "infinitely" precise here: three words (ro, vi, penbi) do the job > > completely. > > [That {cu} is ungrammatical there.] > > {nau} might be more precise than {vi} and {ca}, which rely on an unstated > reference point. Indeed this would be the word I want. > > But there is no fully context-independent meaning of how widely > "here" and "now" can extend. In some context "here" could mean > "the planet Earth", in other contexts it could mean "this room", etc. > Same for "now". Then restrict using "within 1 meter of me, at this exact second". This problem of context (solved in the sentance prior) pales in comparison to not being able to specify at all. > > > But what if I want to restrict down to "all bears that are in that > > cage", or "all buildings on my street"? This sort of > > complete-restriction is used all the time! > > Yes, and it's easy to do in Lojban: > {lo ro cribe poi nenri le va selri'u}, {lo ro dinju pe le mi klaji}. > By your definition, "all in context":: {lo ro cribe poi zasti gi'a xanri} - "all bears in context (the three that are chasing us now) - of them, the ones that exist or are imaginary (well, uh, probably all three of those, but certainly not all bears)" - which is simply broken, as far as a reference to all bears. {lo ro cribe poi nenri le va selri'u} - "all bears in context (perhaps the three cubs that we've been playing with/observing for the past days) - of those, the ones that are in that cage" - which too is broken: if all three bears are in the cage, we mean only those three (and not the other four that may be in the cage). "All in context" is a bad use for inner {ro} for these reasons. > > I don't understand what you mean by "relevance-independant". > > I mean that the set of referents that a word brings into a discourse > is never given by the word itself independently of the context of the > discourse. > Yes, but using context to figure things out is different then refering to the context. "I'm sure you know what I mean" vs. "X that is relative to me in manner Y". To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.