From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue May 16 17:26:22 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 16 May 2006 17:26:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fg9rV-0005Pn-NK for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 16 May 2006 17:26:01 -0700 Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com ([64.233.162.204]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fg9rT-0005PA-78 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 16 May 2006 17:26:01 -0700 Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id f1so121031nzc for ; Tue, 16 May 2006 17:25:58 -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=pc4pzDEWn/B+b/1OXKilx3PnYRHGzMWBEDnbuJdF6y5ZSy8igWaJRbyCyravfznpUd3JQALwiM7YckeAi8/I1ZXJVSmOMbWG8yLsV0mFJ+A2zJqBsf3B3F+lnRrAJqpmQzqdy8aBMGZpFSpQn+7R7/naMbD+pvOElNVtbfJVvfE= Received: by 10.36.221.31 with SMTP id t31mr220353nzg; Tue, 16 May 2006 17:25:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.153.14 with HTTP; Tue, 16 May 2006 17:25:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 18:25:58 -0600 From: "Maxim Katcharov" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} In-Reply-To: <20060516180605.9560.qmail@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.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: <925d17560605160731j379ecfdbo42862a88433e112c@mail.gmail.com> <20060516180605.9560.qmail@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11574 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 > -1: Is there a complete, universal, fixed set of referents valid for any > utterance and context, such that any given utterance will always pick its > referents from that set (with suitable restrictions)? Yes, though I don't see a problem if there wasn't. This set includes every permutation of what could be a bear in every place at every time [...]. This set is practically infinite. If this set did not exist, what would the problem be? > 0: Assuming we have a referent (either picked from the context-free universal > set hypothesized in -1, or in some other context dependent way), is there > always a context-free answer to whether a given referent satisfies a > given predicate? Yes. The example that ensued suggests that we need context to help us determine what the definition of a word is. It is a problem if the definition is that vague - but it is a problem of the definition, and we do our best to avoid those sorts of problems in Lojban. > say "all stones on the table", does "on the table" include stones that > are on the board but not directly on the table? Is it even relevant to make English "upon" implies directly supported by. I'm on my chair, my feet are on this floor. I'm not on the earth: I'm within the planet, I am above the ground, and I am not on the ground. Given more consideration, I say that my previous assesment of {cpana} was wrong. {cpana} does not mean "upon", it means "supported by from below". {lamji se sarji} would mean directly supported by. So yes, those that are on the board are {cpana} the table. > the distinction given the context? Does "on the table" include a stone > that may be stacked on top of another stone which is on the table? Is it Yes. And so it would be by {lamji se sarji}; I would consider the stones as a group: "put the thing directly-on the table (composed of white stones) into the white bag". > even relevant to ask that question? Do we need to define {cpana} in such > a way that for every single context, the answer to whether a stone on the > board counts as being "on the table" is always the same, independent of > the context? Yes. Use English if you want to have words that vary based on context. > 1: Can a speaker actually restrict down to what their referant is? > (i.e. "make a complete restriction"?) Yes, limited by their clarity-of-mind, intellect, and vocabulary. You can't, by the way, have something vague in mind - if the speaker means "any non-specific three" or whatever, they can use an /outer/ quantifier: {su'oci} "some random three" - but those would be some three out of some specific 'set' (perhaps/probably the universal set described in -1). > 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? Yes. The absolute utility is demonstrated within this very discussion: John wouldn't be offering various interpretations of aleks's speaker's sentances if they were completely restricted. I also offered a "2 of 10 bears in a cage, release all bears in the cage" example earlier, to which xorxes suggested "Now, taking into account not just the twenty bears that we've been talking about but other bears as well, ...", which amounts to something like {__ ro cribe poi [in the cage, and are in context¬ in context]}, which I think is a sloppy way of doing it in any case, and ridiculous in contrast to my suggestion. > 3: Is there room within the current model for the proposed usage? Yes. Right now, {ro} for some reason means "all in context". I say that it should mean "all", and that a blank inner should mean "the most contextually sensible number of relevant bears", which is a much more sensible way of saying "all in context". 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.