From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed May 10 19:53:21 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 10 May 2006 19:53:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fe1IT-00074k-NS for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 10 May 2006 19:53:01 -0700 Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com ([64.233.162.193]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fe1IQ-00074W-Vu for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 10 May 2006 19:53:01 -0700 Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id n29so72159nzf for ; Wed, 10 May 2006 19:52:58 -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=ZzBx+55oRAWlbdBFJlQ+rs2OV2ghZNrJAPSW7J9w39efiKhTl7Lp9eNYWJQeGNQCuGIoBEDy/z5Ir4e5ZG2JceqiCAaVagPEqwYaZY+wEOB39VN5ESr0Xm8QrGYOOgUCgENv7W9XsHZ6epa2nXKiulmvKa30U/HkNm/cjxkSRBY= Received: by 10.36.251.66 with SMTP id y66mr364823nzh; Wed, 10 May 2006 19:52:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.153.14 with HTTP; Wed, 10 May 2006 19:52:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 20:52:57 -0600 From: "Maxim Katcharov" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le In-Reply-To: <925d17560605101920o84917e4t99c4dc0b2b9d9b6c@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: <925d17560605100646o576097b7n1eb81fa3d7c681df@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605101536r3efb57c0re1125ff3301a3403@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605101635x1702203cu13e8397e3ee956ea@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605101754ibf2c8k435cb516bfee8b32@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605101920o84917e4t99c4dc0b2b9d9b6c@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11479 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: > > On 5/10/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > > > It is not "all" that is open to interpretation, it is "bear" (or whatever > > > the predicate). The set of things that satisfy a given predicate > > > relevantly depends on the context of the utterance. > > > > So you're talking about verificity? I thought that we had put this aside. > > No, I'm not, I'm talking about what's relevant and what isn't. > In most contexts imaginary bears will be irrelevant, and so they > won't be referents of {lo ro cribe}, but in some context they might > be relevant and so be part of the universe of discourse. I don't understand the implications of "It is not "all" that is open to interpretation, it is "bear" ". > > {sai} or {cai} aren't a solution, they're a hack that ... well, for > > the purposes of this discussion, make it hard for me to give you a > > sensible example. But one still exists that completery breaks the two: > > we have two favorite cubs, out of a litter of 5, in a > > group-owned-by-us of 10, and they're all playing with some other cubs, > > in a large group. And I suddenly start talking to you about "all > > bears" (however wrong I may be). For all you know, I may be talking > > about the two cubs (your {ro}), > > In that context, {lo ro cribe} could not be just the two cubs. You already > mentioned many more bears and therefore they are necessarily a part > of the universe of discourse. Just by mentioning something you make it > a part of the discourse. No, I didn't mention any of these bears. They're simply there. We were sitting in silence. Suddenly, I speak up with {__ ro cribe} (with sai or without). Which "all bears" am I talking about? > > the litter (uh, {ro sai}), our bears > > (...{ro cai}?), the bears in the forest that surround us, the bears in > > the country that we're in, whatever. Point being, there could me more > > than 3 contexts that are a lot more sensible than "all bears". > > In a given discourse the context is always one. As the conversation > proceeds, things can be added to the universe of discourse, but to > make an interpretation of a sentence you must first have the context > pinned down somehow. > > > I mean, > > given the nature of talking about all bears, there's /usually/ more > > than 3 contexts that are more applicable than it. But I want to talk > > about all bears. I'm trying to start a philosophical discussion or > > whatever. > > How do you manage in English? Why would it be any harder in > Lojban? You simply say: "Let's now talk about all bears that ever > existed, or could have existed" or something like that. How would you say "let's talk about all bears that have ever existed"? > Position 1: There is a determinate number of things that satisfy > the predicate {cribe}, independent of any context whatsoever. Therefore > in any context {lo ro cribe} refers to all and exactly those things. Handled by my {L_ ro cribe} > Position 2: The things that satisfy any predicate may vary with > context. In a given context {lo ro cribe} refers to all and exactly the > things that in that context satisfy the predicate {cribe} (not just the > things present where the speaker is, mind you, all the things that > relevantly satisfy the predicate). Handled by my {L_ cribe} > I think position 1 is simply unworkable. Notice however that anyone I don't understand. Look at my pen example, which I find completely workable, sensible, and a very definite-restriction using position 1. > who thinks it is workable can try to stick with it. Whenever someone > uses position 2 you simply mention to them whatever you think they > may heve left out, thinking it was irrelevant, and then you force them > to adopt your position, because you have introduced into the universe > of discourse what had so far been irrelevant. If you do it consistently I don't understand what you're getting at here. I'm not planning to correct the context, I just want to start talking about all bears, regardless of the many interpretations of "all bears". > people will just think you are a pest (introducing an irrelevant interpretation > once can be funny, twice can be forgiven, but doing it constantly it > becomes obnoxious). 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.