From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sat May 13 15:01:45 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 13 May 2006 15:01:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Ff2AT-0006GY-Lk for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sat, 13 May 2006 15:00:59 -0700 Received: from web81314.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.40]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Ff2AI-0006GE-C3 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 13 May 2006 15:00:54 -0700 Received: (qmail 94037 invoked by uid 60001); 13 May 2006 22:00:44 -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=ZSJIQujfS3cqm4FWS9wpD4OMCvs7XLy0Ro4DTD7fgo6mQ08+R8jEpL+dUgzhfO1GicdB7w4EKhUI44r3BI6hywsuOdCl6nMuMXma22iyjFWoucqLUrNk2+9wQLcf9jBO4I3O6J1MoIwxnPMzX/dMD5RXoo9DNHzLCV51pTECLgA= ; Message-ID: <20060513220044.94035.qmail@web81314.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.237.223.173] by web81314.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 13 May 2006 15:00:44 PDT Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 15:00:44 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <53C22018-40B9-4380-A45A-CA9ACC41583D@umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-archive-position: 11537 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 Thid sounds about right, if a bit more formal tha strictly plausible. But it does not answer what has become for me the leading questions: what does Maxim think is wrong with this and what does he propose in its place. I was sure he had something but every case he gives seems to me to be just the same old stuff (pretty much as laid out here)and what is wrong with it is just that it may fail, as may the cases he proposes as better (since they are just these same old cases). Can someone clear this up for me? --- Alex Martini wrote: > 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 > === message truncated === 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.