From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Jun 16 12:44:41 2005
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 16 Jun 2005 12:44:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50)
	id 1Dj0Hx-00059p-07
	for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 12:44:33 -0700
Received: from web81306.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.81])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.50)
	id 1Dj0Ht-00059h-FT
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 12:44:32 -0700
Received: (qmail 9325 invoked by uid 60001); 16 Jun 2005 19:44:28 -0000
Message-ID: <20050616194428.9323.qmail@web81306.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [65.69.50.91] by web81306.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 12:44:28 PDT
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 12:44:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [lojban] Re: Again {xorlo} and Wiki.
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
In-Reply-To: <925d175605061609023d2f80f2@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--)
X-archive-position: 10189
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

--- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 6/16/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > --- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > I don't think {pa lo cribe} contains any
> > > implicit "in the world",
> > > but it certainly differs from {lo pa
> cribe}.
> > > For example:
> > 
> > In the universe then? (using "universe" in
> the
> > technical sense?) 
> 
> I prefer "universe of discourse". "Universe" by
> itself
> usually ends up being interpreted as the
> physical 
> universe.


What I meant, of course, but I get tired of
typing "of discourse" throughout these
discussions.  I am trying to save "world" for now
for the augmented physical world: physical plus
all the abstract things that Lojban admits of at
some basic level.
 
> > I think that this expression
> > ought not be true if there are no bears in
> > whatever is the relevant domain.
> 
> I don't think it is possible to talk about
> bears and
> at the same time keep them outside of the
> relevant
> domain. If you mention bears, then
> automatically 
> there are bears in the relevant domain, i.e.
> there are
> bears in the discourse. Even to say {no cribe
> cu nenri
> le vi kumfa} "there are no bears in this room"
> I have 
> to bring bears into the discourse.

As I have said many times, you can do that, of
course, but it is often unnatural and
occasionally misleading unless you are sure your
interlocutors at least know your rules -- even if
they don't follow them.  I presume you want to
restrict {zasti} to the relevant world (my sense)
and let the quantifiers range more widely.
I don't agree, of course, that "There are no
uncorns in this room" requires that there be
unicorns in any sense at all.  I was taught early
on to distinguish unicorns from "unicorn," the
nondistinction which seems to underlie your preference.