From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu May 11 19:59:38 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 11 May 2006 19:59:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FeNs7-0001Lt-4h for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 11 May 2006 19:59:19 -0700 Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com ([64.233.162.192]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FeNs2-0001Ll-Q3 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 11 May 2006 19:59:18 -0700 Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id n29so319058nzf for ; Thu, 11 May 2006 19:59:11 -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=gJ3tKlpu8wal+uzCN7EL8i980ADmBBGjtqIP/x6zMbZw2jwCS52QENc2ROtwBpQFAUbNi/VhvjOWPqzeccDik3BKepASp8/LOS+NtPtuMwkMzHo8hvuHVfvo5Rikse/cFUjOtG+0QaOxm5lFoXTmZo/VBu9owRwXCf8pIj7zL4g= Received: by 10.36.33.11 with SMTP id g11mr1825278nzg; Thu, 11 May 2006 19:59:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.153.14 with HTTP; Thu, 11 May 2006 19:59:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 20:59:11 -0600 From: "Maxim Katcharov" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le In-Reply-To: <4463F513.7060207@ropine.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: <4463F513.7060207@ropine.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11507 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 5/11/06, Seth Gordon wrote: > I have skimmed some of this discussion, so pardon me if I missed an > important detail, but.... > > If I understand Maxim's argument, he wants {lo ro cribe} to refer to > every bear that exists or may exist, unbounded by any context > established by the conversation. By this definition, {lo ro cribe} Indeed. This would allow one to define the context exactly, instead of leaving it up to the listener to guess it. Right now it seems that {__ ro cribe poi [in that cage]} refers to the bears that are in context/"are relevantly seen as bears". What if the relevant bears that we've been talking about for the last hour are some specific 20 bears, 2 of which are in the cage? This would say "all of the (those 20 relevant) bears that are in the cage" - but it doesn't say what I want to say - all of the bears in the cage, context aside. > includes not just every live bear in the real world, but the furry > characters in "Goldilocks and the Three Bears", and the stuffed bears on > display at the Harvard Museum of Comparative Zoology. There are Yes, though I'm uncertain about "imaginary bears" as a rule - how do you express them in space? Do they have their own space? The objections that I've given stand on their own, without having to bring imaginary bears into this. I just include imaginary bears to stress that I mean "aaaaaaaaaall bears". > probably a few occasions when it would be useful to make a statement > about such a broadly inclusive set of bears, but *damn* few. I would Yep. Usually, you'd restrict it with poi, and use something that expresses relativity: relative to now, relative to me, relative to this, etc. Then it becomes drastically more useful. > rather have the freedom to have a conversation in Lojban in the museum, > say {lo ro cribe cu morsi}, and be understood as saying that all the > bears *in this museum* are dead. > My suggestion is that {lo cribe cu morsi} mean exactly that (blank inner quantifier). > For any act of communication to take place, the speaker must make a > reasonable effort to express himself or herself clearly, *and* the > audience must make a reasonable effort to understand. I think part of > that reasonable effort is keeping track of the context of what is being > said and interpreting the words accordingly. > Yes, I agree with this. What I'm arguing for is giving the speaker the ability to to define context (would beone way of putting it) where context may otherwise be unclear. 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.