From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu May 11 10:05:33 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 11 May 2006 10:05:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FeEbD-0005Ti-7i for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 11 May 2006 10:05:15 -0700 Received: from web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.120]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FeEbA-0005TV-FM for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 11 May 2006 10:05:15 -0700 Received: (qmail 35520 invoked by uid 60001); 11 May 2006 17:05:11 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=hE3XXyUB2CYgnfcBH3gALqbC37Fo4gLNIpFYKwnVd120XgiqqNEgLJz6DVm1GnHg+hiKFQQp+2wetGkFXM3cTPP88c1GP93iuXnqWOy4OFJcU/IvspewBfYE4aili611PU0seaH/+rFfi/umDiqSDv11ou/877pkQoFO7zDDCuM= ; Message-ID: <20060511170511.35518.qmail@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.237.223.173] by web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 11 May 2006 10:05:11 PDT Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 10:05:11 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-archive-position: 11492 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list I'm still not clear about the point of all this. Apparently you are saying either that {ro} in Lojban does not work as it has been taken to work or that it ought not be used as it is. The first seems to be false, that is, we seem to use it successfully just fine. The second is largely irrelevant, as "ought"s often are about language: things are as they are and, barring total breakdown, are not going to change. And your remarks have not shown a total (or even partial) breakdown. Rather they seem to show that you have not yet mastered this area of Lojban -- not a surprising event since it is as difficult as any in the languages -- and thus are criticizing ahead of your data. But in case this analysis is incorrect or, if it's correct, to help you get on board, I'll go on. --- Maxim Katcharov wrote: > On 5/10/06, John E Clifford > wrote: > > > > > > --- Maxim Katcharov > > > wrote: > > > > > On 5/9/06, John E Clifford > > > wrote: > > > > --- Maxim Katcharov > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > {__ __ ro cribe} refers to all bears. > At > > > the > > > > > very least all things > > > > > that were, are, and will be bears, > > > everywhere > > > > > (maybe even imaginary > > > > > bears, story-bears, dreamt-bears, or > > > > > hypothetical > > > > > I'm-afraid-a-bear-will-eat-me bears) - > > > > > henceforth "all bears". > > > > > > > > Well, no. {_ _ ro cribe} refers to all > the > > > bears > > > > relevant in the present context, which > may be > > > > anything from the couple specifed to all > the > > > > actual and possible bears. In a neutral > > > context, > > > > it usually means all current actual > bears. > > > > > > I understand this and see the utility. But > I > > > also see a major problem: > > > this approach makes it so that Lojban has > no > > > way to refer to all bears > > > specifically (specifically as in the > opposite > > > of vague in "in Lojban > > > you can express things as specifically or > > > vaguely as you'd like"). > > > What if context overwhelmingly favors three > > > bears? For example, three > > > bears are chasing us -- I say {__ __ ro > cribe}, > > > and obviously I mean > > > all these three bears, right? But what if > my > > > intent is to say "all > > > bears can't climb trees"? (however wrong I > may > > > be.) I have no proper > > > (and consistent) way to say this, because > in > > > this case using an inner > > > {ro} clearly would default it to "all of > the > > > bears chasing us here-now > > > can't climb trees", which is not what I > want to > > > say. > > > > First of all, what is the relevant context is > > largely the speaker's choice, though he has > an > > obligation to bring the hearer onto his page > if > > he goes to far from the "obvious" context. > In > > the second place, the limitiations of context > > Then use my blank inner, "all in context". > You're trying to provide > reasoning for why I'd never be able to restrict > absolutely, and you > simply won't be able to do it. {ro __ ro penbi > poi [in my hand {nau}]} > means one, single thing, and exactly the one > I'm talking about (it's > an absolute restriction). The only vague things > are vi, ca, and > perhaps even nau. If I change those into poi, > "the one that is within > a meter of me and 1 minute of this-time", then, > well, there you go. > The imperfection of my examples really doesn't > obscure my point here. I am not sure what "restrict absolutely" means here. You may be able to give a description that only one thing in fact (or maybe even in principle) meets. It will not be perfectly precise (we dould always find features that are not covered and that might conceivably make a difference), just precise enough to pick out a unique referent (if any). Note that this is still not specific in the relevant sense (if this is still part of the discussion). The speaker can add to even this whatever is needed to assure that the hearer is has the same view of context as he does. Just saying "in context" does not help, since it is always in context; what is needed -- if anything is -- is to clarify what context is vbeing used (or, in other words, what things are to be counted as referentws of {penbi} or {cribe} for present purposes). > > vary with the locution. I think that the > chasing > > bears become pretty decisive for {le cribe}; > {lo > > criber is less clear and more adaptable (add > {pi > > zasti} for example). {lo cribe romei} is > even > > more like to be general -- out of immediate > > context, and {ro da poi cribre} even more > so. > > So there are several ways to jump from talk > about > > those chasing bears to bears in general, all > > existing bears, or even all possible bears > > (indeed all impossible ones as well). > (Though I > > Ok, what are these ways? In a context that > overwhelmingly favors > not-all-bears, I want to "jump out", and talk > about "all things such > that are bears". How do I do this? Well, you might talk of {cribe poi nau zasti} for example. Just about anything will do: the very fact that you are modifying the predicate is a sign that you are going after something other than what the predicate standing alone means in the assumed context. The fact that all of the presupposed bears obviously exist means that referring to the "existing bears" is meant to take us to another, broader, context (to say "existing bears" referring only to the delimited set of bears, which exist, would be redundant, against one of the rules of conversation). As xorxes says: how do you do it in English? the same will work in Lojban. > > do have to admire the sang froid of someone > being > > chased by a honey-eater and discussing the > > general characteristics of such beasts.) > > For your particular case, {lo ro cribe naku > cpare > > lo tricu} or some such, the first thinbg I'd > note > > is that this is not a very natural way of > sying > > this. More immediate would be {no cribe cu > cpare > > lo tricu}, in which case the need for {ro} > > disappears and a whole new set of > presuppositions > > comes into play. > > >From an English standpoint it's not natural. Also from Lojban, because from Logic. > But that's beside the > point. If you want an example of ro that can't > be switched around for > the sake of sounding natural, just consider > "all bears can climb > trees", {__ ro cribe cu cpare lo tricu} . Well, we do get into a personality issue here. I tend to read (wherever possible) {lo ro cribe cu cpare lo tricu} in a singular sense "All the bears are climbing trees," xorxes tends to read it as "All bears climb trees." Consequently, it is important to note changes in focus and context -- and modality (one can be general about particular things as well as general ones). 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.