From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue May 16 18:25:35 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 16 May 2006 18:25:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FgAmq-0006x8-VQ for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 16 May 2006 18:25:17 -0700 Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com ([64.233.162.201]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FgAmk-0006wy-Fu for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 16 May 2006 18:25:16 -0700 Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id f1so130038nzc for ; Tue, 16 May 2006 18:25:09 -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=QQ+8nsweOHt3JJGxbPIHoW5zkdkK/QNUtc8ngWRpm6CCuXbKWUDOBQ+nbgN/ZIYsrSZg34Rnml+BdqGLEZl7nuRjzmxanaGXKv3Yu/KgPEsvcLk/OPuMJk3RqXGIYqyLDdex14KTKpKovIyE3w8xKlXTf8st7VjOtZEuuSBJNpw= Received: by 10.36.96.15 with SMTP id t15mr251217nzb; Tue, 16 May 2006 18:24:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.153.14 with HTTP; Tue, 16 May 2006 18:25:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 19:25:08 -0600 From: "Maxim Katcharov" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} In-Reply-To: <20060516213201.47294.qmail@web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.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: <20060516213201.47294.qmail@web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11575 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 5/16/06, John E Clifford wrote: > that you mean that your description is complete > only in a given situation (indeed, a given > description of a situation), not that it will > work everywhere. But then the question is -- as > it always was -- how is this not dependent on the > situation (or its description)? How is this an It /is/ dependant on the /setting/. But it /isn't/ dependant on the /context/. Do you clearly understand the difference between setting and context? {mi} is determined based on setting. {L_ cribe} is determined based on context. My {L_ ro cribe} is not determined based on setting nor context. My {L_ ro cribe poi nenri L_ va selri'u} would be based on setting because there's a {va} in there. If there was a {pu} in there, it would be based on setting. If you rely on setting, you won't be mistaken in determining what the referent is correctly. If you rely on context, you may be mistaken. > See above. So you want completeness within a > given situation description. Thus you will leave > out anything not mentioned in tht description, > even if it turns out to play a role in actual aleks provides a description of a situation. Do you understand the difference between a description of a situation, and the situation? >From his description of his situation, I formulate in my mind what the situation probably was. I then provide my own description of the (my conceived) situation. I might not properly describe aleks's situation, but that doesn't matter in the least, because I'm describing my situation correctly, though my understanding of what the situation actually was (based on his description) might be wrong. > I doubt that he could have presented things so > completely that it would not be possible to slide > in some unmentioned feature. It is very hard to > predict what might go wrong. (1) A: Put (all the black stones that are cpana this table now) in this black bag, and (all the white stones that are cpana this table now) in the white bag. (2) B: Just because you made (all the captures in that just-previous-to-now game-instance that we played) doesn't mean that you have to tell me what to do. (3) A: (joking) No, but the fact that I won (all of the three-just-previous-to-now that we played games) does. (4) B: I think that's (all the stones now 'belonging' to this game-board). Let's go inside and eat lunch. (5) A: Good idea. Watch out for (all the stones that are currently along this path) that you don't trip. Keeping in mind that I'm using the definition of "all" that doesn't mean "all ... only that are relevant", please show me how a slide can occur. > > > > But in /this/ situation, they are not. > > This we really don't know. They are called > "stones," which, in a game context is simply > ambiguous. *You* can specify what you want in > your interpretation, but the original does not. > Do you mean that the definition of stones might actually be game-pieces? Because it isn't. I'm not changing the definitions at all. I'm seeing the stones / gamepieces / things / materials / roundish objects / etc. as stones, not game pieces. > > You have yet to present a further difficulty > > (as you term it) that is > > either neccisary, or doesn't stem from what > > seems to be a belief that > > the situation is vague in the mind of the > > speaker. > > OK. Let's suppose the speaker has a perception > (description) of the situation and wants to > specify a referent. He has an expression whihc > is adequate givne this situation description and > he may (maybe also, maybe the same) have a > complete{ expression for the purpose. The > "complete" expression is adequate (I will grant > for the present purposes cerainly). The adequate > expression is no longer than the complete one. > So, suppose he uses the adequate one and it > works, the hearer comes to the intended referent. > In that case, the "complete" expression is > superfluous, if it is different, and useful, if > the same, because it is adequate, not because it > is complete. On the other hand, suppose the > adequate expression fails, the hearer does not > come t the intended referent. Since the > expression was adequate to the situation > description of the speaker, it must be that the > hearer is working with a different description, > one for which the speaker's expression is not > adequate. But, since the "complete" expression > is complete only for the first situation > description, we have no assurance that it is even > adequate, let alone complete, for the hearer > description. Since it is generally more detailed > than the adequate expression and thus more > closely tied to the original description, it is > likely to fail the new description even more. So > the "complete" expression reaches the goal of > introducing a new referent only occasionally and > accidentally when the adequare expression fails. > In the meantime, using the "complete" expression > always will result in generally longer > expressions. It is not clear that the need to > occasionally correct a missed referent results in > a longer average expression than always using the > "complete" expression. On balance, then, using > adequate expressions seems the more natural > ("better") choice. > I don't think I understand what you're talking about here, but I'll make a guess and respond: A complete restriction is not more useful than an incomplete restriction when context makes the referent overwhelmingly obvious in the incomplete restriction. Complete restrictions are useful for when context is vague, like in my "2 of 10 bears in a cage, release all bears in the cage" example. Another example is how you and I can't really be sure of which of the various interpretations of A and B's sentences is correct. Have a look at any contract to see yet more examples of complete restrictions. > And yet this depends upon at least the table > being clearly specified (is "this" enough? -- and > isn't it contextual anyhow). That is, I don't > see this as context free. I also don't think Yes, it is enough, the implication is that I'd be pointing at one thing in my area of perception that fits "table", or it would be the very nearest table to me, or what have you. No, it's not based on context, it's based on setting. So it's ok if it's based on "the table being clearly specified". > << You can't have a > situation-independant antecedent.>> > > What does "antecedent" mean here? (Described below.) What I just-above ("you can't have...") said is probably confusing; I take it back. > > << You percieve the situation to be a > certain way, and you'll restrict based on that. > Your perception might > even be wrong - maybe you didn't notice that > there were some non-game > stones on the table or whatever. But your > restriction would still be > right based on your perception.>> > > Is your perception (situation description) what > you mean by "antecedent." Then, of course, since No (roughly): The situation is what happened or what you have in your mind as happening. The "situation description" is pretty much everything that aleks said at the start of this thread related to his example. The setting concerns where and when something happened, and who "mi" is, how "va" would be treated, etc. The antecedent is the group of words that directly determine what is being referred to, based on setting. The listener will then determine what the referent is based on this antecedent, and on context. > just-previous games". Are you saying that context > has already > specified this? Because that's the exact problem > that I'm trying to > address: when context is the only thing that > "specifies" something, > and it (context) is ambiguous (as it always is, > to some extent).>> > > Well, if it doesn't specify that (and I take it > "the last three games" does something along that > line) then where did you get it from. Setting. > <<> > You're correct, though it would probably be > > > "all the stones related to > > > the game set (board, bags...)" (here I'm > > > assuming that the speaker > > > doesn't consider that some stones may have > > > rolled into the grass long > > > ago). > > > > Though, if they should find one, it should > > probalby (you don't actually say in your > > "complete" description) go into the bag, too. > > I don't see how that's relevant: the speaker is > saying "I think I got > all of the stones into the bag", he isn't saying > "I did my best to get > all of the stones into the bag".>> > > But his thought may be wrong in some absolute > sense. In that case, he has missed the referent So what if his thought is wrong? His description of his thought isn't. > <<> > Here we're deliberating on the best way > > > to make a complete > > > restriction, but this doesn't indicate that a > > > complete restriction > > > cannot be made, which seems to be your > > > position.>> > > Actually, my point is just that, even if > "complete descriptions" (in your sense) are > possible -- as they are -- they are not any You agree that complete descriptions, as I describe them, are possible? Your arguments above seem to contradict this. > better than other devices for getting new > referents (the ultimate point). Ok, what's the other device for getting the new referent in this case: Consider: I've been talking to a zookeeper about 20 certain bears for the past hour, and in fact, I'm in the middle of a sentence regarding them just as we get to a somewhat filthy cage/habitat, in which I see 2 of those 20 bears. I say "take all the bears in the cage to the infirmary for a checkup, right now". The zookeeper takes the two bears out of the cage, and begins shutting the door. I stop him, and say "take ALL the bears in the cage to the infirmary for a checkup". The new referent would be "all bears". I want to convey "take ALL [...]", without repeating myself. Observing that the listener did not understand and then repeating myself in a way that hints at what I really meant is *not* an "other device" that I would accept as valid, much less better than what I propose. > > paths" (which wouldn't restrict to ornamental > > stones or this certain > > path at all, and would have a better ring to it > > in Lojban).>> > > > > That is, the "complete" restriction you give > > originally is not the "real" complete > > description? > > No, I'm just saying that I would say something > different, something > that has a different restriction on it.>> > > So, a complete description is not unique in a > given situation (description). Or did my No, I'm saying that I'd be talking about a different referent, and so would be giving a new complete-description. > Unless I'm unbelievably mistaken, saying that an > inner {ro} refers to > *all* - well, that tells how many things are in > the referent.>> > > But I thought you just said that what {lo ro > cribe} did was signal that the desciption was > complete. Yes, it does both. Because {ro} would refer to "*all*", we could then safely always assume that the restriction was complete - that it didn't refer to "well, not *all*, but some of *all*, specifically 'all that are relevant' given the context". That is, if I say "*all* bears" (and you understood me as I intended) you wouldn't think "he very probably means all such that are bears... and such that are in the zoo". > But no one has seriously held to that since a > week after CLL was published (and damned few > before it). It was a careless carry-over from a > problematic situation in Lolgan. So, why bring > this in here? I'm just stressing that I'm not bringing this in here, in case the problem was that you assumed that I had. > Ah, the philosophical bear set. I really rarely > mean that except when I am in the philo mode. I > am surprise that you mean that unless you are in > that mode. Most often I mean some > spatio-temporarily delimited set of bears.. I > rarely care about talking bears, winged bears and > the like, just about the ones that might affect > me. Your 'spatio-temporary delimited set of bears' is what I call 'the contextually sensible set of relevant bears', yes? > arguing for its inclusion > into your version of the language.>> > > So, since we don't have that -- anywhere, why are > you arguing for its mythical inclusion? We do have it. We just don't have a /sensible/ way of expressing it in Lojban. 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.