From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sat May 20 15:17:14 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 20 May 2006 15:17:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FhZkl-0004OQ-88 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sat, 20 May 2006 15:16:55 -0700 Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com ([64.233.162.193]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FhZkh-0004OE-Sk for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 20 May 2006 15:16:55 -0700 Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id f1so925025nzc for ; Sat, 20 May 2006 15:16:51 -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=CWv7+J6FCeJHC/V9rMhJ6vneu+GdIMLh7GTBHt86ofMiagncyI0xhhvXtqVG3aDgyUkcSY/0XgTvB2HPwtB6f0RukrQs3anhu4/BfV/B4j69KxfbwhQPP/mOkvr9pO9Gg6/ctPDkEyG41OVFRnAC7qz9zOPqFujGvLbxxo+mofw= Received: by 10.36.251.11 with SMTP id y11mr3886715nzh; Sat, 20 May 2006 15:16:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.153.14 with HTTP; Sat, 20 May 2006 15:16:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 16:16:49 -0600 From: "Maxim Katcharov" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} In-Reply-To: <925d17560605200715t32c87d1dpf95ffb3023c95526@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> <925d17560605170638h3206c565pd67d5519e6d00674@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605171928h4d0b087dodbae45cd597acb21@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605180654r75d895f7s3bcaaa5ff79ed0f@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605190915l4c6a5017o5cae14790fb38b3b@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605200715t32c87d1dpf95ffb3023c95526@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11640 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 5/20/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > 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 I think it does. The definitions were laid out in the first post of this thread (and then later I laid them out more extensively), and if we're not going to stick to them, we're going to have a hard time understanding each other. > 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 It does matter if the word "context" is ambiguous. What you *were* saying was "context (referents and concepts brought up or implied in the course of discussion) affects the definition of words". Now you seem to be saying "context (each word including cmavo previously used to do something) affect the definition of words". The former is false, the latter is true. > 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 "for a short time, an unspecified amout of all hypothetical bears exist" (when I say "hypothetical bears", I mean the bear mega-set.) > "Not all bears exist." ronai lo ro cribe cu zasti "not all of the entire hypothetical bear-mega-set will 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." This specific {pe ri} is what I would consider a zasti-type. I deduce from context that it means "...that existed in the perceptual-universe of the cartoon". > > 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? {dasni} is not a zasti-type. > > 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. I'd like a restrictive sticky to exist in Lojban. Like if I say {lo cribe poiki dasni lo mapku}, from now on when I say {lo cribe} I mean that it's bears restricted to ones that wear hats. I think that it would be useful. > > (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". In this case I wouldn't use {ro}/"all": "...know this: bears killed by people...", or I'd probably say something like "all bears killed here must be accounted for", to which they may reply "disambiguate 'here'", to which I'd reply "lo Wasomething Settlement". > > 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? Yes, quite correct. 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.