From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed May 17 18:44:10 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 17 May 2006 18:44:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FgXXq-0002nb-MB for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 17 May 2006 18:43:18 -0700 Received: from web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.121]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FgXXp-0002nQ-75 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 17 May 2006 18:43:18 -0700 Received: (qmail 79764 invoked by uid 60001); 18 May 2006 01:43:15 -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=eT+R0wIqIQyBKAEEK0NO8z3j4dG1z3ZFSG3xGKYWwyP5tXsmkbf3xPFcv3YFQqHn1nh4EGZg3aamcXR1ZQxIZsQPvMXPBXUVNxVK1axmC/lO1oaDjX41ovFs+fLgv97s2iOZOkJKqzq6ly19q6L4L6bEQXUcv198UQ3nTHjBXVU= ; Message-ID: <20060518014315.79762.qmail@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.237.229.49] by web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 17 May 2006 18:43:15 PDT Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 18:43:15 -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: 11595 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 Well, as I have said occasionally, I have used it in philosophical discussions (also logical and linguistic), but even there it has to be spelled out some way. Just {lo ro broda} or "all brodas" would not do if the scope of the discussion was not well established. --- Alex Martini wrote: > [ li'o ] > > > > On 5/17/06, John E Clifford > wrote: > >> Contracts are, alas, rather cases of one of > the > >> sort of thing I am pointing out, namely that > you > >> cannot actually cover all the cases by a > simple > >> description (or a complex one for that > matter). > >> Consider a contract between a customer and a > >> dairy for the dairy to deliver two quarts > of > >> milk to the customer's home every Thursday. > One > >> Thursday a tiger escaped from a circus and > was > >> roamin in the area of the customer's home > and > >> attacking people. The dairy told its > deliveryman > >> not to deliver the customer's milk that day. > The > >> customer sued for breach of contract > (Thursday > >> but no milk). The court ruled for the > defendant, > >> saying that contract did not have to say > "except > >> on tiger days" for this to be an exception; > tiger > >> days just don't count as Thursdays for this > >> contract. The ruling was affirmed on > appeal. > >> Here is as unambiguous a description as > possible > >> and yet it too is relative to some > interests, > >> which interests may not be dealt with > beforehand. > > > > Despite the unrealistic use of "tiger days", > I'll reply on your terms. > > The court is stating that the restriction > given, "all tuesdays", was > > not the one intended. It's saying that both > parties screwed up in > > writing the contract. This is a result of the > ambiguity of "all". If > > the word "ool" was defined as "every single > one. Yes, those too. NO > > EXCEPTIONS", and it was used in a contract, > how do you think that this > > hypothetical court would have ruled? Speakers > of a language with a > > word like "ool" would be well versed in the > dangers of using it, and > > would indeed be better contract writers - I'm > sure that you've heard > > of clauses like > > > > "...on all tuesdays from [...] to [...]. The > milk company reserves the > > right to not serve milk on days that are > unreasonable in the sole > > judgement of the milk company." > > > > in real contracts, yes? > > > > This idea of 'absolutely all, with no > exceptions whatsoever' as a > definition for 'all' seems to have been batted > around a bit by this > point. I don't find that I use it in normal > conversation -- does > anyone have a good example of actual usage in > this way? (in context > would be better than more designed examples). I > have a feeling that > it is really seldom, if ever, used. Even formal > contracts have a > habit of tacking on restrictions during the > negotiations. > > ki'e 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. > > 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.