From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon May 15 19:53:42 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 15 May 2006 19:53:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Ffpga-00016Q-4I for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 15 May 2006 19:53:24 -0700 Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com ([64.233.162.203]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FfpgV-00016I-0k for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 15 May 2006 19:53:24 -0700 Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id i28so288654nzi for ; Mon, 15 May 2006 19:53:17 -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=FXPg8DViMkcQYCEk4Rc150XkA7GhF0xkEqfHoCsOz/qS/ThAi3bc6ka5PlTaKZjw/6h+TU9tzGirl0oOuvvNZ3AQSVE3mhJX4AJK7NiNb+8kWmtGYQ/WtdG6BZp2MHldjUvgh+o7BVtEO/z1tHCcghfVx/E2XU6hgxPSlxrDMcM= Received: by 10.36.148.17 with SMTP id v17mr3687414nzd; Mon, 15 May 2006 19:53:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.153.14 with HTTP; Mon, 15 May 2006 19:53:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 20:53:17 -0600 From: "Maxim Katcharov" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} In-Reply-To: <6E2013CF-9EFF-4A1A-8427-8869A781516E@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: <20060515151914.71142.qmail@web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6E2013CF-9EFF-4A1A-8427-8869A781516E@umich.edu> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11553 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 5/15/06, Alex Martini wrote: > This is getting to be a really good example of a too-long thread. > Which I normally wouldn't point out, except that I really don't see > that we're clearing anything up in the process. I think a short study > break might be in order. > > First, regardless of how we like it, {all} doesn't have a single > definition. Rather, it has many interpretations depending on how it's > used. This is actually not that unusual; in my first Intro to > Linguistics course, we found quite a large number of these only > looking at English. These English cmavo-type words (for lack of a > better term) are exceptionally difficult for even the best linguists > to nail down entirely because they are very fluid around the other > words in the discourse. If you want another example, write down every > use of {so} in a discourse. By my count it has at least 4 different > functions, most of which have nothing to do with the core meaning of > {x so therefore y}. > > Also, here are a few useful websites that describe how lo/le are > currently defined in Lojban and some proposed (and possibly accepted) > modification to the rules. I would ask that we take a short > intermission and (re)read these. > > From CLL http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki- > download_wiki_attachment.php?attId=192 > > http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=How+to+use+xorlo&bl > http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=BPFK+Section%3A+gadri&bl > http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Robin's%20gadri% > 20Proposal > > Maybe this too: http://ptolemy.tlg.uci.edu/~opoudjis/lojbanbrochure/ > lessons/less4articles.html > > Finally, let's look at exactly what we want to define. So far, I see > two big questions. What's the difference between {le} and {lo}, and > their counterparts {lei} and {loi}? Also, how do the inner and outer > quantifier, especially {ro} interact with each of these. > > I really don't feel that I know Lojban well enough yet to make a good > explanation of the difference between {le} and {lo} without lapsing > into malglico Lojban, which isn't very helpful. > > [ li'osai ] > > mu'omi'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. > > I think that we're slowly making some progress. It's a hefty subject, after all. Answers.com gives >10 definitions for "so" ({so} = "nine"), and that probably doesn't even cover them all. One of the things that Lojban tries to solve are these hacked-together usages of words. All words are not inherantly vague, we can make words have good definitions. That's what all sides of this debate would like to do. We won't be able to define both an inner {ro} and {le}/{lo} at the same time. Since the last explanation I offered for {le}/{lo} used an inner {ro}, I think that we should clear {ro} up first. I think that the problem may be that we don't have any definite way to know which usage is better. Perhaps we should set up some criterea under which to judge: 1: Can a speaker actually restrict down to what their referant is? (i.e. "make a complete restriction"?) 2a: Is it important to be able to make complete restrictions? 2b: Is there something that the current model doesn't handle well that is handled by the proposed usage? 3: Is there room within the current model for the proposed usage? If the answer to 1 is "no", I will give up my position. If the answer to 2 is a definite "no" (as opposed to a "well, we can sort of hack around it, most of the time"), I will give up my position. If the answer to 3 is "no", then I will try to think of some other way to propose this feature. 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.