From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sat May 13 10:06:56 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 13 May 2006 10:06:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FexZd-0006BL-OU for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sat, 13 May 2006 10:06:37 -0700 Received: from mxsf11.cluster1.charter.net ([209.225.28.211]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FexZZ-0006BB-Q3 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 13 May 2006 10:06:37 -0700 Received: from mxip12a.cluster1.charter.net (mxip12a.cluster1.charter.net [209.225.28.142]) by mxsf11.cluster1.charter.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k4DH6VMb025869 for ; Sat, 13 May 2006 13:06:32 -0400 Received: from 24-247-28-251.dhcp.bycy.mi.charter.com (HELO [192.168.123.137]) ([24.247.28.251]) by mxip12a.cluster1.charter.net with ESMTP; 13 May 2006 13:06:31 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.05,125,1146456000"; d="scan'208"; a="327285662:sNHT19232828" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v749.3) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Message-Id: <53C22018-40B9-4380-A45A-CA9ACC41583D@umich.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; delsp=yes; format=flowed To: lojban-list@lojban.org From: Alex Martini Subject: [lojban] A (rather long) discussion of {all} Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 13:06:29 -0400 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.749.3) X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11536 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: alexjm@umich.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list It seems that part of the problem in the {lo}/{le} discussion revolves around the behavior of {all} / {ro}. I'm going to define a few terms, work through a dialogue, and then end with some general discussion about {all}. The terms {context} and {setting} are normally near synonyms. According to the Oxford American Dictionary, here are their definitions: context: noun the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed : the decision was taken within the context of planned cuts in spending. * the parts of something written or spoken that immediately precede and follow a word or passage and clarify its meaning : word processing is affected by the context in which words appear. setting: noun 1 the place or type of surroundings where something is positioned or where an event takes place : cozy waterfront cottage in a peaceful country setting. * the place and time at which a play, novel, or film is represented as happening : short stories with a contemporary setting. * a piece of metal in which a precious stone or gem is fixed to form a piece of jewelry. * a piece of vocal or choral music composed for particular words : a setting of Yevtushenko's bleak poem. ¿ short for place setting . 2 a speed, height, or temperature at which a machine or device can be adjusted to operate : if you find the room getting too hot, check the thermostat setting. For this discussion, I will use context specifically to refer to the _spoken_ context into which the {all} is placed. This includes all of the discourse prior to the {all}, the rest of the sentence after the {all}, and possibly what the listener anticipates. For this discussion, I will use setting specifically to refer to the physical location, and the common ideas between the listener and speaker The setting is common between the speaker and listener. The context is set by the speaker and understood by the listener. Here is the example dialogue from which I will pull: A and B are sitting at a table in a garden. On the table is a generic board game involving the use of small round stones. On the ground are assorted large stones that are decorationally arranged in the garden. There are two bags with stones in them on the table, a black bag and a white bag. The stones on the table and in the bags are individually either black or white. A has just won the game, and they are putting the game away. (1) A: Put all the black stones in the black bag, and all the white ones in the white bag. (2) B: Just because you made all the captures doesn't mean that you have to tell me what to do. (3) A: (joking) No, but the fact that I won all three games does. (4) B: I think that's all the stones now. Let's go inside and eat lunch. (5) A: Good idea. Watch out for all the stones that are along the path that you don't trip. In sentence 1, {all the black stones} refers to all of the black stones that are on the table. A is not referring to any of the black garden stones. This is apparent to B because the garden stones would not fit in the bag, so this proposition would be silly. It also doesn't refer to the white/black stones that are already in the bag. From here on {all stones} will be assumed to mean {all of the black or white stones that we just were talking about putting in the bag}. If A or B want to change what {all stones} refers to, they will have to use a restrictive clause with {all} or specify something about the stones to expand the current meaning of {all}. Sentence 2, {all} refers to all from this game. This is apparent to A through setting. If B wanted to expand the usage of {all games we have ever played or will play} he must say so. Here, without the setting, context is not clear as to {all from this just finished game} versus {all from every past finished game}. Only setting makes the difference between these two. Sentence 3, {all} here is used with a number. The phrase {all games} would normally refer to every past game, so A must use {all three} to restrict {all} to only the games he means to say that he has won. If A says {I won all the games} then it is less clear to B what A means, and B will probably answer {All which games?}. Sentence 4, here {all} refers back to the meaning set up by sentence 1. Note that it does not include the garden stones. If A or B wanted to talk about the garden stones in this context and setting, they need to expand the scope of {all} to {all the stones, including the garden stones} or replace the scope of {all} with {all the garden stones}. Sentence 5, {all} is used with a restrictive clause to change its scope here. Up to this point, {all stones} referred to the definition from sentence one. However, since none of those stones are garden stones, the restrictive clause forces a new scope on {all}. From now on, {all stones} means {all the stones that are decorating the path in the garden}. In general, we can see the most of the definition of {all} is determined by what was being discussed. We can therefore say that the scope of {all} is determined by setting, and that the speaker adjusts this to meet his intended meaning by context. Another way to look at it is to walk through the process of finding what {all} refers to in a context and setting. Since I'm a programmer, I'm going to write out a sort of human program to illustrate this. - Make a list of things in the setting. Call it The List. - Examine the context for restrictive phrases. Cross off from the list any things that do not satisfy the phrase. (all x that y) - Examine the context for modifiers and cross off from the list any things that don't meet the requirement (all x of type y) - Examine the context and cross off lightly any things that don't make sense. (i.e. put all the stones in the bag -> all the stones not already in the bag) - If this gives a satisfactory scope for {all}, done. Otherwise, ask the speaker about the things you lightly crossed off or the things initially crossed off, depending on which is more plausible. As you can see, there's quite a bit of work going on 'under the hood' here in order for the speaker to use {all} in a way that the listener will understand to mean the same thing. The biggest part is plausibility; the listener simply ignores any situations that the speaker probably didn't mean based on context and setting. To apply this to {ro} in Lojban, most everything still applies. To my understanding, {ro} means {all x, as determined by plausibility, context, and setting}. If the speaker wants to change the scope of {ro}, then he needs to use restrictive clause(s) and/or modifier(s) to force {ro} into a different meaning. mo'umi'e .aleks. 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.