From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sun May 21 19:55:23 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 21 May 2006 19:55:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fi0ZU-0003rN-UH for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sun, 21 May 2006 19:55:05 -0700 Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com ([64.233.162.196]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fi0ZR-0003r1-R2 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 21 May 2006 19:55:04 -0700 Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id f1so1064727nzc for ; Sun, 21 May 2006 19:55:00 -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=L2x8tNOQngwH0a11Dv51zCV8pPow9YK6Jumxr+uXzMT8aSi5GcZSMt2HtgQaVZ5t3DmRG0Y1ddAZ75LU/gTUG+JLXfkq5EA88+gm3iCq48zIreGON4/Lay5tamLbOiE8gQu+KL5mVNtYIstF7d/6m/hyLlq6rkhQDC/RIPeV2QA= Received: by 10.36.42.17 with SMTP id p17mr4697539nzp; Sun, 21 May 2006 19:55:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.153.14 with HTTP; Sun, 21 May 2006 19:55:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 20:55:00 -0600 From: "Maxim Katcharov" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} In-Reply-To: <925d17560605211914t5e0167ebx395b8ecbf89b2032@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> <925d17560605200715t32c87d1dpf95ffb3023c95526@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605201618u41770ed9ob343bbe248e22606@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605210914u7d4863b7qbf4a28a5fe3e72ee@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605211735x2bc459acw4f08020b726d5d6b@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605211914t5e0167ebx395b8ecbf89b2032@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11655 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 5/21/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 5/21/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiguity > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagueness > > > > I see that these describe vagueness as what I've referred to in > > 'people have varying bounds'. Ambiguity most easily described as "a > > word that has multiple meanings", which is not better than the full > > definition of "something that is open to interpretation [based on > > context]" - brackets are my clarification. > > Both ambiguity and vagueness can in general be "solved" by context, yes. > Lojban avoids ambiguity without appealing to context. It doesn't try (and I > think that's a good thing because I don't think it's doable) to avoid vagueness > without appealing to context. "Me"/"I" avoids vagueness without appealing to context (though it appeals to setting). > > > Using zasti's x3 might get what you're > > getting at across, but I don't quite know how that x3 is used. > > "...under metaphysics", what's that mean? > > I don't know how to use the place structure of {zasti}, I've always > thought it a bit strange. > > > > > Like, say, if you wanted to emphasize that you meant all > > > > bears in *GSA*? > > > > > > {lo cribe pe la ba'e gysy'as} for instance. > > > > why can't you then say "bears... pe (having something to do with) ba'e allness"? > > I suppose you could. I'd much rather say {lo ba'e ro cribe} though. > > > > As I said, I do not think that blank inner stands for anything. > > > > I assert that it has to stand for /something/. If it didn't stand for > > anything at all, then you wouldn't be choosing a group to say > > something about. I say that it stands for something like "the most > > contextually sensible number of X". You seem to see a difference > > between your blank inner, and your inner {ro} - what is that > > difference? > > {ro} indicates that all things that count as brodas are being referred > to. Inner blank doesn't. "All" is turning out to be quite an ambiguous word. You probably don't mean "all (ever)", so do you mean "{ro} indicates that all things that, given the context, count as brodas are being referred to."? > > > > > So you're saying that you have a way to say "nothing like dust", but > > > > no way to say "nothing", > > > > > > No, I didn't say that. I can say both: {no da poi simsa lo pulce} and {no da}. > > > > {no da} is *ambiguous*, it could mean either {no da poi simsa lo > > pulce} or {???} (*nothing*). > > I don't think it's ambiguous. It wouldn't *mean* {no da poi simsa lo pulce}, Right, it wouldn't mean it, but it *could* mean it, *if context suggested it*. And it could mean *nothing*. And that's why it's ambiguous. > although the two expressions might happen to have the same referrent > in some context. That doesn't mean they mean the same thing. > {lo pendo be mi} and {lo ninmu poi lamji mi} could have the same referrent > in some context but they don't have the same meaning. > > >I repeat myself: > > > > I'm asking you how I can be specific that I mean *nothing*. Like, if I > > by {no da} meant "no dust", I could be specific (via your method) that > > I meant "no dust" by adding that {da} is dust or whatever. But I'm > > asking how you make unambiguous the other case: that by {no da} that > > you mean *nothing*. > > {no da} already means "nothing" by itself, you don't need to add anything. By itself, your{no da} could mean either "nothing relevant" or "nothing". Quoting you: > 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 Note that I want to be able to say not "nothing relevant", but "nothing". > You want to give it some absolute sense that "nothing" never has, or Of course it has it. You seem to understand very well what I'm getting at with "*nothing*". > perhaps that it does have in some extremely special contexts, in which > case {no da} will also work. No, it wouldn't work, not with the same certainty, ever. Regardless, my point in using the example is that it's clear that your version can't do it without asking the listener to "do your very best to make a guess based on what you know of the conversation, the situation, etc.", and my version can. This non-capability of your version is the same thing that I was getting at in my "2/20 bears in the cage, release all bears in the cage" example, and in others, but it was much less obvious there. > > > This is like if I were to ask you "what if by {lo danlu} I > > specifically meant dog? > > It means "animal(s)", never "dog". It could be used to refer to some dog. The analogy is that this animal-referent could be either more specifically reffered to as perhaps a dog or an elephant. If I meant "dog", you can do it, but you have no way of expressing "elephant" (i.e. "*nothing* whatsoever") even though such a thing exists. > > > And what if I specifically meant elephant?" > > and you were to answer "{lo gerku}, and {lo danlu}". Well, yeah, but > > {lo danlu} doesn't *specifically* mean "elephant", does it? > > Neither specifically nor nonspecifically, no. > > > Just like > > {no da} doesn't specifically mean or even imply "*nothing*", > > Yes, it does. (Minus the emphasis. You can add {ba'e} for that.) I'm using the English emphasis to state that I mean "nothing" and not "nothing... in context". Lojbanic emphasis is not used in that way. > > > since it > > may just as well imply {no da poi simsa lo pulce} if the context was > > in that favor (and it seemingly always is). > > Did you mean {poi _na_ simsa lo pulce}? It never implies that, but in Yes, I think I did. > many contexts dust is not relevant so it is not even a possible candidate. > When you say {no da poi na pulce} dust is relevant, so you are forced to > take it into account. > > > > > 2a: Is it important to be able to make complete restrictions? > > > > > > It is important to be able to make complete enough restrictions in any > > > given context, yes. You can do this both in English and in Lojban, and > > > in any language that serves to communicate. > > > > Ok, if you can make complete enough restrictions in Lojban, tell me > > how to, by your version of it, say *specifically* (as in, a "complete > > enough" restriction or whatever), that you mean "nothing"? > > Unless you provide some more context, I'll stick with {no da}. There is no more context. I'm telling you that I want to say that, of all hypothetical things, concepts, - everything - that can ever be concieved by humans or otherwise, none of those things exist within the box. This is a very clear and unconvoluted thought: "nothing exists in the box". And I want to be able to express it as such, without having to constantly explain exactly what I mean, like I've been doing in every response since I brought the subject up. > > > > > > (1) A: Put (all the black stones that are cpana this table now) in > > > > > > this black bag > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's a rough idea of the situation, so that you don't think I'm > > > > > > changing anything: There's one table and one black bag in my > > > > > > perception. All the black stones supported-from-below-by the table are > > > > > > from the game-set (and therefore fit in their bag). There are no > > > > > > stones in the black bag, because they were dumped out, so saying just > > > > > > cpana is exactly what I want to say. > > > > > > So, what have I failed to restrict? > > > > > > > > > > For all practical purposes, nothing. In an absolute sense, I don't know, > > > > > > > > What do you mean you don't know? You think that the stones might > > > > actually be dried berries/plastic imitations, or what? I assure you > > > > that I'm talking about typical stones, and that they fit both our > > > > models of what stones should be very well. Yes, a crazy person might > > > > exist that calls them elephants, but between you and me, I think that > > > > this restriction is 100% complete. > > > > > > Sounds complete enough to me too, I'm not sure what kind of response > > > you expect here. > > > > I don't want to misunderstand you. Perhaps you meant "complete enough, > > but it still relies on context (referents and concepts brought up or > > implied...)". > > Yes. You can't get away from context, it's always present. > Yeah, context is always present, but it doesn't always have an effect on determining referents. So it's not needed. How do you need context to determine what "me" refers to? You don't. Though you do need the *setting*, which is something very different. 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.