From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed May 17 06:38:33 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 17 May 2006 06:38:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FgME9-0000k0-Cz for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 17 May 2006 06:38:13 -0700 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.239]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FgME4-0000jo-OJ for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 17 May 2006 06:38:13 -0700 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i11so217534wra for ; Wed, 17 May 2006 06:38:07 -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=oqqJRcFkNO2rhV1cWhcptwiX9NETJYdcSNgPggep1TjtP0HrhvD22voPs6d8w4tBe2SxAv4nbtwSPd3/F0ejtXvMKRSsp6nAiXV2K/Ox+tXJJbPzEtMslDdQfYAohUfuDwhw2SFCCEhPYy1VR/fnXk5m4r/iIhS8Fv0CgjFtMlc= Received: by 10.54.140.1 with SMTP id n1mr1141282wrd; Wed, 17 May 2006 06:38:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.126.20 with HTTP; Wed, 17 May 2006 06:38:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560605170638h3206c565pd67d5519e6d00674@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 10:38:07 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} In-Reply-To: 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: 11582 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On 5/17/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > 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)? > > > 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". No, those are {lo ba cribe} and {lo pu cribe}. In many contexts they would not be candidate referents, so you would need the {ba} or the {pu} to make them available. In some special contexts, they may be included in {lo cribe}. > > Otherwise, in different contexts > > You mean in different situations/settings, yes? The situation/setting is always part of the context. I mean in different occasions of use. > > 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.) This is what I mean: In many/most contexts particles of dust won't be available as possible referents without some extra work from the speaker. So if you say {le tanxe cu vasru no da}, "the box contains nothing", dust particles won't count as a disproof of the assertion. Of course, any participant may bring dust particles into the discourse and then they will have to be dealt with somehow, but until and unless that happens, they don't count. You seem to want them to always count, so that {le tanxe cu vasru no da} is practically always false. > 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 > [...]? I wouldn't say it's wrong, I'd say it's humanly impossible. > {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. That's the point, I don't think there are such absolute criteria. I'm pretty sure that the criteria are practically always adjusted by context. > 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. And also when, where, and in what context, right? What you mean by it in one utterance is not exactly identical to what you mean by it in another utterance. There will of course be a _lot_ of commonalities, a lot of overlap, that's why we say it's the same word with the same meaning, and not a homonym, but it's not identical in an absolute sense. > 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. The way to solve it is to ask for further clarification until both parties are satisfied that the misunderstanding has been cleared up. > > > > 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. No, I meant it as a rhetorical question mostly. I don't think an absolute restriction is humanly possible. A good enough restriction is certainly possible and we do it all the time, but an absolutely fool-proof one normally isn't. > 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? "Certain" in an absolute sense? No. But I would say it's the most likely interpretation, yes, so certain for all practical purposes. > 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. Indeed, that's how language works. But you make it sound as more uncertain than it normally is. Under normal circumstances none of those less-than-absolute-certainties interfere with understanding. > > > 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? Lojban can make the scope distinction pretty clearly: lo ro cribe poi mi'o pu casnu ku'o .e lo ro cribe poi mi'o na pu casnu (sensical) lo ro cribe poi mi'o pu casnu gi'e nai casnu (nonsensical) None of the bears was such that it was both talked about and not talked about. mu'o mi'e xorxes 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.