From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sat May 20 07:16:18 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 20 May 2006 07:16:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FhSF8-0002KU-HO for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sat, 20 May 2006 07:15:48 -0700 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.171]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FhSEw-0002Jv-En for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 20 May 2006 07:15:44 -0700 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id j40so855695ugd for ; Sat, 20 May 2006 07:15:30 -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=iFwM7VnQ8/Y2R86KOF7OXQBtAU1mRhgVorh+n012V3fmLHqUR5h34J9lTf+zPRdQ/EkDsXmZXwVpnwXS6D59m1OZy2j37BRpu6rCFMCIV6+xuIEg3zhyZOHiYkeNWqWv8RHpHd13n9Mk1rUeYavR+xm/VPMVWL4HK42x7iNO7vk= Received: by 10.78.48.16 with SMTP id v16mr780618huv; Sat, 20 May 2006 07:15:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.78.23.12 with HTTP; Sat, 20 May 2006 07:15:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560605200715t32c87d1dpf95ffb3023c95526@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 11:15:29 -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: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <925d17560605160731j379ecfdbo42862a88433e112c@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605170638h3206c565pd67d5519e6d00674@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605171928h4d0b087dodbae45cd597acb21@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605180654r75d895f7s3bcaaa5ff79ed0f@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605190915l4c6a5017o5cae14790fb38b3b@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-archive-position: 11638 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 5/19/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: [...] > "Unless you're dealing within a {zasti}-type relationship, zasti is > implicitly added as a restriction." This rule that I defined has > nothing to do with context, it's more like a rule of grammar than > anything. [...] > Adding a sticky tense or redefining > a word has nothing to do with context. Context originates from things > that we say, stickyness and redefinitions originate from what we say. > Stickyness and redefinitions do not originate from context. For me, both of these are instances of context. In any case, it doesn't really matter whether we call it "context" or something else. The important thing is that in at least in those two cases the referent of {lo ro cribe} will change because of things said in a different part of the discourse. So those two at least are cases where our positions coincide. We can start from there. Now, what exactly counts as a zasti-type relationship? ze'i lo ro cribe cu zasti "Not all bears exist." mi pu viska lo pixra skina i lo ro cribe pe ri cu dasni lo mapku "I saw a cartoon. All bears in it wore hats." Would you agree with those usages? In the first case, {zasti} is a zasti-type relationship, so {lo ro cribe} includes non-existing bears. In the second case, I would say {lo ro cribe} also must include non-existing bears, but is {dasni} a zasti-type relationship? As for stickyness, consider these three situations: (1) A formal agreement such as where {lo ro cribe poi se catra lo prenu} would be licensed by the formal definitions at the beginning of the agreement. (2) A semi-formal situation where for example an instructor with a prepared speech explains the agreement to a group of people. They may start their talk by saying: "In what follows, when I say 'bear' I will mean the grizzly bears at GSA" and so on. (3) An informal situation: "You're new here, right? OK, then you have to know this: all bears killed by people must be accounted for, no exceptions are admitted". Now, if I understand the proposal correctly, you would not object to usages (1) and (2), because the terms have been defined explicitly, but you would object to using {lo ro cribe poi se catra lo prenu} in (3) because it relies on common sense and context and not on something stated explicitly in order to figure out the referent. Is that right? 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.