From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon May 22 08:25:35 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 22 May 2006 08:25:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FiCHV-0000Zu-6N for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 22 May 2006 08:25:17 -0700 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.174]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FiCHR-0000Zk-Uy for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 22 May 2006 08:25:17 -0700 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id j40so1159030ugd for ; Mon, 22 May 2006 08:25:12 -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=m0+pb6QrzwL0JPYHgGJpltqCPk2GiUc7eym1+kQ25bltty2mhe1jEwx4eLEGoc5bAc5j7LFQzUZ4W2hG/ZMehrWziq3Ashm5XeNoW4vCkcyyxd8wvd03wTH/Od5GH59XiuWpUJA7/bA7ZQNgj5QXOr83Pc8ocFug7j7Ljes6g2Y= Received: by 10.78.29.13 with SMTP id c13mr1133764huc; Mon, 22 May 2006 08:25:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.78.23.12 with HTTP; Mon, 22 May 2006 08:25:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560605220825n5df40f6bs6ea5d63c881dee2@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 12:25:11 -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> <925d17560605201618u41770ed9ob343bbe248e22606@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605210914u7d4863b7qbf4a28a5fe3e72ee@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605211735x2bc459acw4f08020b726d5d6b@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605211914t5e0167ebx395b8ecbf89b2032@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) X-archive-position: 11657 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 5/21/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > {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."? I don't think we are on the same page on "ambiguous" yet, but yes, I do think that what counts as a broda may vary from one context to another. For example, to show one difference between no inner quantifier and inner {ro}: mi pu klama le zarci gi'e te vecnu lo mapku I went to the market and bought hats. mi pu klama le zarci gi'e te vecnu lo ro mapku I went to the market and bought all hats. > 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. For "nothing exists in the box", {no da zasti ne'i le tanxe} works just fine, as far as I can tell. You don't need to explain anything. For "of all hypothetical things, concepts, - everything - that can ever be concieved by humans or otherwise, none of those things exist within the box" you would use a similarly longwinded expression. It would be a waste to have some short phrase like {no da} reserved for something so precise, given that it is rarely if ever 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. (I do consider the setting to be part of the context of an utterance, but leaving that aside) "me" refers to the speaker, and that's a pretty precise thing indeed. That's not to say it's infinitely precise. For example: "Look at me, not my feet" (that's an actual usage I got from Google). Does looking at my feet count as looking at me? There is no definite, absolutely certain answer valid for all contexts. Neither is one needed. 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.