From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sat May 13 19:38:57 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 13 May 2006 19:38:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Ff6VC-000818-So for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sat, 13 May 2006 19:38:39 -0700 Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com ([64.233.162.206]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Ff6VA-000810-45 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 13 May 2006 19:38:38 -0700 Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id n29so652174nzf for ; Sat, 13 May 2006 19:38:34 -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=bZDkMLfYl1e+3I2FE7TfFtvCXefB2l9F5nDrg9uC4vCBw4A+BX34pyXUlEWIsJSRs7EVb25YEb2qdyXPkCVa5SoaEuYPPkZxQQVwSNPESuio/OvQuitTooLzT5MZIBRNDdkzsgJJc8q9QdKto0seoiHwxGVL99mnsoQKcMkE+RU= Received: by 10.36.194.8 with SMTP id r8mr165183nzf; Sat, 13 May 2006 19:38:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.153.14 with HTTP; Sat, 13 May 2006 19:38:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 20:38:34 -0600 From: "Maxim Katcharov" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} In-Reply-To: <53C22018-40B9-4380-A45A-CA9ACC41583D@umich.edu> 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: <53C22018-40B9-4380-A45A-CA9ACC41583D@umich.edu> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11540 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 5/13/06, Alex Martini wrote: > [...] This is a good discussion of the subject. I'd like to expand on it in a way that could shed some light on what I'm arguing regarding the subject of {ro}/all. I'll use "context" and "setting" as they have been defined. When people speak, a referent is always involved. The referent could be a number of things, it could be a single thing. Sometimes the referent is not physical: "the concept of a bear...", "that word", "that thought". Sometimes the number is very large: "all of everything", "all bears(ever)". Sometimes it is very small - singular even: "those bears", "me", "that cage". A referent can be seen as "something that can be restricted to". A restriction is the chopping off of all things such-that-aren't-X, and leaving an antecedent that presents such-that-are-X. If you've chopped off everything that isn't and are left with only your referent, then the restriction is complete. Most of the time, people will make incomplete restrictions - restrictions that nudge the listener towards what is meant, but are missing some further restrictions that would make them complete. The listener must determine what these missing restrictions are based on context. Let's consider the same examples previously given: (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. Now, let's take the antecedents out of the context (but not out of the setting). The given antecedents on the left (a), and those that would restrict completely on the right (b): 1: all the black stones, all the white stones -- all black stones that are now on this table, [same for white] 2: all the captures -- all the captures related to that last game 3: all three games -- all three just-previous games (or all games today?) 4: all the stones -- all stones related to that last game 5: all the stones that are along the path -- all stones that are along this path (now?) We see that the given antecedents (left) are not restricted completely, except for perhaps 5a. Notice that of these given antecedents, the only one that gives the proper indication of what the referent is is 5a (unless we mean stones that are on the path /now/). However, when reading the complete restrictions on the right, we know exactly what the referents are, and they're exactly the referents intended. It really isn't a difficult job to restrict your antecedents completely, as we see here. Also of note is how the listener of the full sentences (containing _a) above would fill in the remaining restrictions, exactly as they are given on the right (_b), based on context - for example, for 1a, the listener would fill in based on context "...that are now on this table". When you've given a completely-restricted antecedent (as I have on the right), it's a good idea to let your listener know this, or they might very well assume that context might need to be used to restrict further (as it usually would). English lets the listener know that the restriction is complete with an emphasis on "all", or with additional explanations. Now, an explanation of how all this currently applies to Lojban. {L_ cribe} is a restriction to bears. {L_ cribe poi bajra} is a restriction to bears and runners. Adding an {nau} restricts it to the most immediate space and time, and so on. Adding an explicit number into the inner quantifier will let the listener know that the should restrict down to that number. {L_ pa cribe} hints that the number of referents is one. Now, when we say {L_ cribe} (blank inner) we leave the user to restrict using context. The listener will pick out the most applicable referents. The current interpretation of {L_ ro cribe} is that it refers to all relevant bears. The current interpretation of {L_ su'o cribe} is that it refers to some relevant bears. What's the difference between {L_ cribe} and {L_ ro cribe}? There isn't any practical difference. In the former, it is said "we don't say anything about the number", in the latter "all those that are relevant". These are two perspectives on (or parts of) the same underlying principle: "Listener, we're not giving you a number-restriction, so just use context to guess what the referent is". Lojban seems to have one way to signal that the restrictions are complete: with additional explanations. I say "seems to" because this is what has been told to me. I find this more than strange. {ro}, being synonymous with a blank inner quantifier is readily available (and perhaps may have been intended) to serve as the marker that the restriction is complete and that the listener shouldn't add any other restrictions using context. Perhaps it served this function, and was confused to mean some assertion regarding how many there really are in existence right now? I don't know. The definitions that make sense to me are: {L_ ro cribe} - *all* such that are bears {L_ su'o cribe} - some relevant bears {L_ cribe} - the most contextually sensible number of relevant bears (For the last one, I don't say "all relevant bears" because the given definition is enough - the word "all" would not clarify it, and would probably make it worse.) I invite comments. 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.