From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue May 16 20:52:37 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 16 May 2006 20:52:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FgD57-0002fZ-It for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 16 May 2006 20:52:17 -0700 Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com ([64.233.162.198]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FgD54-0002fR-Ip for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 16 May 2006 20:52:17 -0700 Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id f1so152365nzc for ; Tue, 16 May 2006 20:52:10 -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=bNcxM3kX4fieze9UlGqFgx6emyOYSe2QNyg1kKAldyxgIk+Zkoy55v0OxUArt1deAEFL2mwlum11MVmtmjEKlZA4izoeewzieh0CC9WymixFIIb7Rm3WlZRKRDpmf4pOcVgub+VrPsSpLxXbe2shc7FiIxCOkG4DiaxpCYL5wK8= Received: by 10.36.251.66 with SMTP id y66mr264949nzh; Tue, 16 May 2006 20:52:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.153.14 with HTTP; Tue, 16 May 2006 20:52:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 21:52:10 -0600 From: "Maxim Katcharov" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} In-Reply-To: <925d17560605161836n48cdbcc8te6ddc2d279fe96ac@mail.gmail.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> <925d17560605161836n48cdbcc8te6ddc2d279fe96ac@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11580 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 5/16/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 5/16/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > > -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? > > I don't think there is such thing, but you need it for the complete > specification approach to work. You also need it for "future bears" to work, and for "past bears" to work in a way that isn't "such that are in our memories now". > Otherwise, in different contexts You mean in different situations/settings, yes? > your starting point for restrictions could be different and so you > would end up with a different referent. Well, given that the listener would know the setting (i.e. who mi is, when it's happening, etc.), they should also know what the starting point (out of the various ones) is, assuming that the starting point varies at all, which it doesn't. (Which is why I asked why it would matter.) Why is it wrong to use this hypothetical set that includes every permutation of what could be a bear in every place at every time [...]? > > > > 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. > > Again, for the absolute approach to work, you need every > predicate to be non-vague. Unless you allow that for > some predicates {lo ro broda} has one referent fixed for all > contexts whereas for other predicates it has a referent that > does depend on the context. But if this is the case, how do > you tell which predicates are absolute and which are not? > > So you would not use for example something like: > > ko jgari lo ro cpana be le jubme gi'e bevri cy le zdani > Take all that's on the table and bring it to the house. > > because that would include for example dust particles that > are on the table, and you don't really want those to be > brought in. You would have to add some other restriction > to {lo ro cpana be le jubme} (not sure exactly what). You'd probably want to restrict it to whatever word means item/usable object / trinket / distinguishable-from-here object / etc. So yes, you can do it, though it's more of a bother than it usually would be. You'd probably just use a blank inner instead. > > If you have your hand resting on the table with the palm up, > and a stone in your palm, would you say the stone is {cpana > le jubme}? > Yes, assuming the table offers some support-from-below to your hand. > > > 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. > > Or any other language, for that matter. I don't think it is > even possible to define words in such a way that you cover > all the uses the words will have in all posssible contexts. > You propose {lamji se sarji} for "directly supported" as opposed > to {cpana} which would also allow mediated support. Would it > be correct to use {lamji se sarji} if there was some dust on > the table, so that the stones might actually be on the dust > rather than directly on the table? Does this need to be > clarified in the definition of {lamji}? Is there a maximum > allowed empty space between two surfaces (the same for > every conceivable context?) so that {lamji} is applicable? Can {lamji} means "adjacent/beside/next to/in contact with". So even if there was a that layer of dust or molecules, it would still make sense. I see what you're getting at - at what point does something become big enough to cause two things to not touch? At what point is something no longer a bear? I would say that my {lamji} has my absolute criteria, your {lamji} has your absolute criteria. This brings up a very interesting point: all words that you use are inherantly non-veridical. If I see a group of things that represent the various stages of a change from bear to table, I'll have a definition of where things stop being a bear, and of where things start being a table. And you have to use my definition. So if I tell you {lamji cpana}, I mean it by my definition as it was at the time I said it. So yes, words can mean different things based on who said them. There's a chance of a situation arising where what I think you meant by bear isn't what you meant by bear. A very small chance, in contrast to the chance that the context is ambiguous. I don't know how to solve that problem, but this doesn't make my efforts to solve this problem futile. > we say for example that a house is {lamji} to another if there is > a separation of one meter between them, or do air molecules > interfere with the adjacency? > > > > 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. > > And would you say that there is at least potentially any > human speaker with enough clarity of mind, intellect and > vocabulary to restrict down to what their referent is in at > least a significant number of cases? Certainly. I sense a trap, and hope that it won't be one of technical definition. > > > > 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? > > > > 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, ...", > > Only for the case when you thought the zoo-keeper might > be confused about what you meant. In real life, the presence > of a bear in the cage will almost certainly make it a relevant > referent of "all bears in the cage" no matter how many hours > you had been talking about other bears. > If I've been talking about 20 certain bears, and I saw 2 of those certain bears in a cage, and said "release {L_ ro cribe}" (your definition), is it certain that I'm talking about all the bears in the cage? Maybe I'm talking about the three bears that I saw in the cage? Possibley I'm talking about those two contextually sensible bears - why would I care about the rest of the bears, after all? It doesn't seem very certain to me at all. And again, look at all the interpretations that aleks's speaker's sentances allowed. > > which amounts to something like {__ ro > > cribe poi [in the cage, and are in context¬ in context]}, > > What??? Where did this "in the context & not in the context" > come from? Certainly not from me. If they are a referent > they are thereby in the context, this is a result of your > interpretation, not a restriction used to get to the referent. 1 "Now, taking into account not just the twenty bears that we've been talking about but other bears as well, ...". 2 "that we've been talking about" = "that are in the context of the conversation" (i.e. "context" and not "setting") 3 "now, taking into account not just the twenty bears that are in the context of the conversation, but also bears that are not in the context of the conversation" ("other") 4 "X such that are bears, and such that are both in context and not in context" "...are in context¬ in context" or "...and are both those that we've been talking about and those that we havn't been talking about", if 2 is wrong. Or did I mess that up elsewhere? > >which I > > think is a sloppy way of doing it in any case, and ridiculous in > > contrast to my suggestion. > > That would indeed be ridiculous. > > > > 3: Is there room within the current model for the proposed usage? > > > > Yes. Right now, {ro} for some reason means "all in context". > > No, it means "all". Your "all" seems to /be/ "all in context". If your {ro} meant "all" as I describe it, you wouldn't be arguing that {L_ ro cribe} could possibley mean, if the context was suggestive of it, "just all the bears *in the zoo*". 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.