From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu May 11 17:55:39 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 11 May 2006 17:55:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FeLw9-0007ww-TQ for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 11 May 2006 17:55:22 -0700 Received: from web81309.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.125]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FeLw5-0007wn-TJ for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 11 May 2006 17:55:21 -0700 Received: (qmail 13511 invoked by uid 60001); 12 May 2006 00:55:11 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=CHH64u4TptL9MjywhVTH+pDK+BlBS28NEe1SH9njov3q5c5UHpAYclTbCpJ9FHxwxQQXcSLt+I+O4xdVCRItomVTjoWWWSBrTLMNH8dgJKoDAgmFdzC8cyVU8DN/8AC5vOe4Tzb+ZM4DhF2ZUkVjctXyiXlswD/u/Hk8gc3opC8= ; Message-ID: <20060512005511.13509.qmail@web81309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.237.223.173] by web81309.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 11 May 2006 17:55:10 PDT Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 17:55:10 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-archive-position: 11501 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 --- Maxim Katcharov wrote: > On 5/11/06, John E Clifford > wrote: > > I'm still not clear about the point of all > this. > > Apparently you are saying either that {ro} in > > Lojban does not work as it has been taken to > work > > or that it ought not be used as it is. The > first > > Yes. Both, but more clearly: I'm presenting a > case where {ro} is > applied inconsistantly. It's used just fine > because two seperate > concepts of {ro} are used interchangably. A few > emails ago, xorxes > presented two positions - my current task is to > show that they are > being used interchangably, and that using them > interchangably is > inconsistant, and hence a bad thing. Well, I am not sure how much more clearly since I am not clear what the two approaches are that you see as being used and as bsiing inconsistent with one another. It seems to me that if the Lojban use of {ro} is inconsistent, then so is the English use of "all," the main difference I see being that we have tried to lay out the Lojban use with some care, whereas -- linguists aside -- English speakers are pretty unaware what is going on. {ro} (like "all") means everything (or the named sort) in the domain of discoure. What is in that domain -- particularly of the sort in question -- varies with the context (which is a fairly broad concept, involving what is said, what has been said, what is in the attention of the conversants, and probably countless other things encompassing the whole range of the conversant's experiences and knowledge). The speaker needs to be sure that what he says fits into the existing context or change it in recognizable ways. He does not always do so -- or does not do so successfully -- so muddling can -- and does -- occur. And then the adjustments have to be made. But in all this, where is the inconsistency? Indeed, where the two usages? > > --- Maxim Katcharov > > > wrote: > > > > > On 5/10/06, John E Clifford > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Maxim Katcharov > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 5/9/06, John E Clifford > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > --- Maxim Katcharov > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > {__ __ ro cribe} refers to all > bears. > > > At > > > > > the > > > > > > > very least all things > > > > > > > that were, are, and will be bears, > > > > > everywhere > > > > > > > (maybe even imaginary > > > > > > > bears, story-bears, dreamt-bears, > or > > > > > > > hypothetical > > > > > > > I'm-afraid-a-bear-will-eat-me > bears) - > > > > > > > henceforth "all bears". > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, no. {_ _ ro cribe} refers to > all > > > the > > > > > bears > > > > > > relevant in the present context, > which > > > may be > > > > > > anything from the couple specifed to > all > > > the > > > > > > actual and possible bears. In a > neutral > > > > > context, > > > > > > it usually means all current actual > > > bears. > > > > > > > > > > I understand this and see the utility. > But > > > I > > > > > also see a major problem: > > > > > this approach makes it so that Lojban > has > > > no > > > > > way to refer to all bears > > > > > specifically (specifically as in the > > > opposite > > > > > of vague in "in Lojban > > > > > you can express things as specifically > or > > > > > vaguely as you'd like"). > > > > > What if context overwhelmingly favors > three > > > > > bears? For example, three > > > > > bears are chasing us -- I say {__ __ ro > > > cribe}, > > > > > and obviously I mean > > > > > all these three bears, right? But what > if > > > my > > > > > intent is to say "all > > > > > bears can't climb trees"? (however > wrong I > > > may > > > > > be.) I have no proper > > > > > (and consistent) way to say this, > because > > > in > > > > > this case using an inner > > > > > {ro} clearly would default it to "all > of > > > the > > > > > bears chasing us here-now > > > > > can't climb trees", which is not what I > > > want to > > > > > say. > > > > > > > > First of all, what is the relevant > context is > > > > largely the speaker's choice, though he > has > > > an > > > > obligation to bring the hearer onto his > page > > > if > > > > he goes to far from the "obvious" > context. > > > In > > > > the second place, the limitiations of > context > > > > > > Then use my blank inner, "all in context". > > > You're trying to provide > > > reasoning for why I'd never be able to > restrict > > > absolutely, and you > > > simply won't be able to do it. {ro __ ro > penbi > > > poi [in my hand {nau}]} > > > means one, single thing, and exactly the > one > > > I'm talking about (it's > > > an absolute restriction). The only vague > things > > > are vi, ca, and > > > perhaps even nau. If I change those into > poi, > > > "the one that is within > > > a meter of me and 1 minute of this-time", > then, > > > well, there you go. > > > The imperfection of my examples really > doesn't > > > obscure my point here. > > > > I am not sure what "restrict absolutely" > means > > here. You may be able to give a description > that > > only one thing in fact (or maybe even in > > principle) meets. It will not be perfectly > > precise (we dould always find features that > are > > not covered and that might conceivably make a > > difference), just precise enough to pick out > a > > unique referent (if any). Note that this is > > Precision in picking out a referant has nothing > to do with describing > the referant down to the last molecule. It's > enough to give a > description that only the-thing(s)-you-refer-to > can meet. Enough for what? If you get down to a description which only one thing meets, it is pretty pointless to add to it if your purpose is to pick out exactly one thing (or, more likely, at most one thing), if your purpose is to give a complete description of a thing then obviously you will usually have more work to do -- and can't always do it. You still don't have specificity (if that is still a relevant remark -- I am not sure). > > still not specific in the relevant sense (if > this > > is still part of the discussion). The speaker > can > > add to even this whatever is needed to assure > > that the hearer is has the same view of > context > > as he does. Just saying "in context" does not > > help, since it is always in context; what is > > needed -- if anything is -- is to clarify > what > > context is vbeing used (or, in other words, > what > > things are to be counted as referentws of > {penbi} > > or {cribe} for present purposes). > > > > So the meaning of {penbi} can change based on > context? I really do > disagree, unless you're talking about > verificity. No, the meaning of {penbi} does not change; what is available to be counted a pen in the discussion may well change -- "available" in the sense of being in the domain of discourse. 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.