From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed May 17 09:38:07 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 17 May 2006 09:38:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FgP1x-0005DO-3L for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 17 May 2006 09:37:49 -0700 Received: from web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.121]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FgP1v-0005DF-8s for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 17 May 2006 09:37:48 -0700 Received: (qmail 45103 invoked by uid 60001); 17 May 2006 16:37:46 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=rHF5pCv6KiFBkp1grWhcdnkRPuno7HggspDRKQpLnUWQJof0V4EPiwhRrpIXvnwrZBNqQ/R1pyCat1B+ueIGTboiCo4h+ZYh7zpHTq5HIAAQU6q4mistisbOt7612/gj0bmbbe1MdkTZTVq3zfu0SurWWmW1mNdaqvmp3Vq/AZI= ; Message-ID: <20060517163746.45101.qmail@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.237.223.173] by web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 17 May 2006 09:37:46 PDT Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 09:37:46 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-archive-position: 11587 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list MK’s proposal in a nutshell. (For corrections, additions, explanations, etc.) 1. 1. Lojban’s method of introducing new referents is inefficient, ineffective and incomplete. Lojban descriptions depend upon unmentioned factor which conversants infer from the flow of the discourse and from the physical environment in which the discourse occurs. In particular, the set of things having a mentioned property is restricted to those things of that sort that are relevant to the discourse at the moment. The inferences involved in correctly identifying the referent of a given description may be long and complex and the factors on which they are based may not be obvious to all the conversants. Thus, there is a strong possibility that the referent will be missed, requiring further discussion to correct the mistake. But especially, this relativization of reference makes it impossible to refer to the things which have the property in question but are not relevant to the discourse so far, forr example, to jump from the bears we have been talking about to all bears absolutely (ever, existent, imaginary, merely possible, etc.) or even just all in the area, including those we have not been talking about. 2. In every situation (a discourse carried on in a given environment), for any object or group of objects, there is a description that applies (and will be seen to apply) to exactly that object or group. Further, this description does not rely on the flow of discourse and relies on the environment only for ostention; that is, it relies only on overtly mentioned properties and deixis. It thus avoids the difficulties that make Lojban descriptions so fallible. And, being not relativized to the discourse, it can introduce things that are not already relevant to this discourse. 3. Lojban needs a way to use these descriptions (“complete descriptions”) clearly marked as such. Since these descriptions tend to be longer than the ones Lojban ordinarily uses, and the ordinary ones work well enough for ordinary cases (when we mean to stay within the already given bounds of relevance), Lojban should keep most of it present descriptions for the ordinary cases, but some redundant or little used form should be set aside for complete descriptions. 4. The form {lo ro broda} is redundant for relativized descriptions and so could be used for complete ones (and only for them). In relativized descriptions, {lo ro broda} refers to all the brodas relevent to the discourse so far, but this is just what {lo broda} refers to in relativized descriptions. Further, since a complete description exactly specifies its referent, we are indeed interested in all such things. The expression {lo ro broda} would thus be accurate in terms of Lojban meaning, which the present, relativized, {lo ro broda} is not: in the latter {ro} does not mean “all” but “all relevant ones” or some such. 5. So, Lojban should adopt the convention that {lo ro broda} indicates that {broda} (which may be complex, of course) is a complete description of the intended referent. And, wherever the using a relativized description involves vagueness or ambiguity – or even just complications that extend the needed inferences unduly -- in the background on which description, complete descriptions should be used instead. And, of course, always for cases where the domain of relevance in aa discourse is being changed, whether by restriction or expansion. A. Tied in with this, though not essential to it, is the claim that, for every property, P, there is a set (or whatever) of all the things that have (now, at some other time, in the realm of possibility, …) and that this set (…) is the referent of {lo ro P} (as corrected by the proposal). Relativized descriptions may be made complete by explicit restrictions carvving out subsets of this set. 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.