From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri May 12 20:23:41 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 12 May 2006 20:23:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fekix-0003ob-JZ for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 12 May 2006 20:23:23 -0700 Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com ([64.233.162.198]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fekiu-0003oU-0c for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 12 May 2006 20:23:23 -0700 Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id j2so580739nzf for ; Fri, 12 May 2006 20:23:19 -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=DgyRJ+DIJhX474hkiX+6v0lW598hOrWDoPju6EmTigyX5LQZYTsFJeMp2EPLK+txliZSD5pG6vudA5N8ndTBX56YF9xzGcrno4bpz2ml9pV9KuygrwDtGXQy7Ro9TXaEuUI7NYtBAJ2vHp3zSGsUIG/QjNqLUGVhoTm6emDzdEY= Received: by 10.36.224.31 with SMTP id w31mr3445023nzg; Fri, 12 May 2006 20:23:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.153.14 with HTTP; Fri, 12 May 2006 20:23:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 21:23:18 -0600 From: "Maxim Katcharov" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le In-Reply-To: <925d17560605121850q38d49a3qaae649a9f6012e2b@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: <925d17560605120641y12e1cfb7ydb80fad3d465bb1a@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605121557l1341cd6dn57fab88b8c956e80@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605121704y72a68ee6u9cd709c3cc8b1409@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605121743p2fec3c21o6296fb8db5fdb87e@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605121850q38d49a3qaae649a9f6012e2b@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11531 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 5/12/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 5/12/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > On 5/12/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > > > It would refer to anything that could relevantly > > > be said to be a bear in the cage, and any other bear in the cage besides > > > the ones we've been talking about before can certainly be relevantly said > > > to be a bear in the cage from what you are saying. > > > > We havn't been talking about those bears before. This is the whole point. > > New relevant referents can and are constanly introduced in any > conversation. "Relevant" does not mean "we've been talking about They're introduced through a hack in which you have to find something that makes no sense in the current context, which makes the listener say "ah, ok... I guess he's talking about something else now, I think". > it". I don't really see what the problem is. If we've been talking Consider: I've been talking to a zookeeper about 20 certain bears for the past hour, and in fact, I'm in the middle of a sentence regarding them just as we get to a somewhat filthy cage/habitat, in which I see 2 of those 20 bears. I say "take all the bears in the cage to the infirmary for a checkup, right now". The zookeeper takes the two bears out of the cage, and begins shutting the door. I stop him, and say "take ALL the bears in the cage to the infirmary for a checkup". Is the difference in meaning, and the utility of that difference apparent? I hope that it is. This is the difference between position 1 and 2, and it's essential in, to give one example, contractual writing. But really, it's useful anywhere that you want to explicitly state what you mean, without having the listener guess based on context (without having context get in the way of clear communication). > about twenty bears and now you want to talk about other bears as well, > and you think I might be fixated on the twenty for some reason, then > say something like: "Now, taking into account not just the twenty > bears that we've been talking about but other bears as well, ..." I don't Haha. So, if I want to talk of all bears in a cage, I'm going to have to say {__ ro cribe poi [in the cage, and are in context¬ in context]}. I'm boggled that you'd even suggest this, when the method I've presented is so much cleaner and more sensible. This method you suggest, instead of fixing the problem, suggests that speakers simply keep away from it, or "work around it". I've been trying to make my examples quite general, but you show me that general speech, even in Lojban (at least this aspect) has many work-arounds. This is much like insisting that nouns and verbs are all that is needed to communicate (which is essentially true), and that this concept of a predicate relationship (which nouns and verbs are essentially based on/aspects of) is simply unneccisary. I mean, yeah, you're right, but there's a better way to do it. > think such extreme measures are called for very often, but they are > always available. > > > > There is no universally fixed referent of "bears > > > in that cage" that can be relied on for every possible context ever. > > > > Yes, there is: "all the bears in that cage now". How is this even > > remotely ambiguous? > > I wouldn't say it's ambiguous. But I would say that every expression > can eventually have different referents in different contexts. For example: > > "All the bears now in that cage are eating." > (Probably the most common referent.) > > "If all the monkies in that cage were bears, then all the bears now in that cage > would outnumber the rabbits." > (A very odd referent.) > > And in any case, I don't know what your point is here. Even if > "all the bears in that cage" would always and under all possible > circumstances have one and the same referent, that wouldn't change > the fact that countless other {lo ro broda} forms have more easily > varying referents with context. That's the point, they wouldn't have ambiguous referants. They'd all have exacting referants, "all such that are bears, such that are in this cage". Even "all such that are bears" would have an exacting referant: all bears. > > > So you're saing that {L_ cribe} defaults to {L_ su'o cribe}, "some > > relevant bears"? > > No, I oppose default quantifiers. I don't take {lo cribe} to have any > implicit inner or outer quantifier. Inner {su'o} may look very harmless, > but it can have many connotations that I don't really care for. I'm > happier with no quantifier expressed meaning no quantifier implied. > Ok, let's consider that an inner {ro} emphasises that you mean all relevant (/not/ all that have been mentioned, but only those relevant to the sentance), and {su'o} means 'some of the relevant'. So, what does a blank inner mean? It doesn't mean "nothing". It, to the listener, means "those that are relevant here". Which sounds oddly similar to an inner {ro}. Can you provide me an example that illustrates the difference? 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.