From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu May 18 06:54:51 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 18 May 2006 06:54:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FgixE-0005Sy-Tw for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 18 May 2006 06:54:17 -0700 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.173]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FgixC-0005Sq-L7 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 18 May 2006 06:54:16 -0700 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id j40so439029ugd for ; Thu, 18 May 2006 06:54:11 -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=ScjoiocZ1W3yFrAqAtswKhDsNbXDTqxohTgniFC27in27vhKgbQbW1finzwho+ZJkw5XERq8qlHopIjYiNnDwDjTvosYWIdQsCfxYrT3mgWJ/3NOm+fkWKqeboHzo6IwfNAQ7FeQxSPkB/SQoVNRBwl0MF2BBp2Z/Ls9YlLgQMk= Received: by 10.78.51.16 with SMTP id y16mr344196huy; Thu, 18 May 2006 06:54:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.78.23.12 with HTTP; Thu, 18 May 2006 06:54:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560605180654r75d895f7s3bcaaa5ff79ed0f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 10:54:10 -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> <20060516180605.9560.qmail@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <925d17560605161836n48cdbcc8te6ddc2d279fe96ac@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605170638h3206c565pd67d5519e6d00674@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605171928h4d0b087dodbae45cd597acb21@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -1.8 (-) X-archive-position: 11612 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 5/18/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > What does a number without a L_ expand to? An inner or an outer, or > something different? Outer. {PA broda} = {PA lo broda}. Subtle nuances could develop, but we might just as well ignore those for now. > > > {mu L_ ro cribe cu ba zasti} > > > Five bears, out of all hypothetical future bears, will exist in the future. > > > > Yes, that's "out of all bears, exactly five will exist (at some > > unspecified time > > in the future)". > > "[out of] all bears" amounts to my "[out of] the set of all > hypothetical/possible permutations of bears". Does this clarify how > I'm using this 'hypothetical-all-permutiation set'? Or do you disagree > with this? > > If you disagree, then how are you using "[out of] all bears" in that > above sentance? I was using it in my sense, i.e. "out of all things that count as bears". > You don't mean "(out of) the set of all bears that > will exist", because that wouldn't work. No. But notice all the different things it could still mean: ze'e ba ku mu cribe su'o roi ku zasti From here to eternity, exactly five bears will be such that each at least at one time exists. ze'e ba ku mu cribe ro roi ku zasti From here to eternity, exactly five bears will be such that each at every time exists. ze'e ba ku su'o roi ku mu cribe zasti From here to eternity, there will be at least one time when exactly five bears exist. ze'e ba ku ro roi ku mu cribe zasti From here to eternity, every time time will be such that exactly five bears will exist at that time. All say different things. And that's just with {ro roi} and {su'o roi}. > > > > This is what I mean: In many/most contexts particles of dust won't > > > > be available as possible referents without some extra work from the > > > > speaker. So if you say {le tanxe cu vasru no da}, "the box contains > > > > nothing", dust particles won't count as a disproof of the assertion. Of > > > > course, any participant may bring dust particles into the discourse > > > > and then they will have to be dealt with somehow, but until and unless > > > > that happens, they don't count. You seem to want them to always count, > > > > so that {le tanxe cu vasru no da} is practically always false. > > > > > > Are you saying that you lose the ability to express yourself? > > > > No, in what way am I saying that? > > If {le tanxe cu vasru no da} is practically always false, then the > implication is that it's hard to say it in a way that means I'm just > talking about sensible things - not dust, and not molecules. I was > just asking if you wanted to imply that, and I see that you did not. Umm, again, I misread your question. Yes, I am saying that using your system you lose the ability to express yourself concisely. > > > Given your example, {L_ tanxe cu vasru no da}, exactly how /would/ I > > > make the assertion that there is *nothing* in the box? > > > > You mean how would you emphasize the "nothing"? With {ba'e}: > > > > le tanxe cu vasru ba'e no da > > The box contains *nothing*. > > No, sorry. I mean how would I say that the box contains nothing - no > molecules, no dust, etc.? This is how *I* would say that: le tanxe cu vasru no da to no maisle .e no pulce .e zo'e si'a toi That is of course a much less likely thing to say than the usual "nothing", so it is proper that it takes a bit more effort. > > >Does {mi panpi > > > no da} mean that I am at peace with nothing? Or is it just nothing > > > that we've mentioned? > > > > "I am at peace with no one" would be a better translation, since the > > candidates for being at peace with will normally be people. > > One could also not be at peace with a hand that looks like a flipper, > a broken lamp - that sort of thing. One could, but that's less likely, so if I had to translate to {panpi no da} to English, in the absence of further context, I would go with "at peace with noone". > "There is not a thing that I am at > peace with", with the implication that there are some things that you > could be at peace with. > > > Relevant things are not necessarily or even usually things that have > > been mentioned before. Things mentioned are almost automatically > > relevant, but the converse does not hold. Most relevant things usually > > would not have been mentioned. > > I agree, though that doesn't quite answer my question. {mi panpi no da} means "I am at peace with noone/nothing". It is not necessarily about things previously mentioned. Without context, it could not possibly be about things previously mentioned because nothing was previously mentioned, of course. > > > > > Why is it wrong to use this hypothetical set that includes every > > > > > permutation of what could be a bear in every place at every time > > > > > [...]? > > > > > > > > I wouldn't say it's wrong, I'd say it's humanly impossible. > > > > > > What's humanly impossible? > > > > To make use of a set that doesn't exist. > > The set is hypothetical. I could make use of "unicorn" though no > unicorns exist. Perhaps I should have said "to make sensible use of such a bag of cats as the postulated set" or something like that. > > > In the email directed at John on May 16, 2006 7:25 PM, starting "It > > > /is/ dependant on the /setting/" I offered the sentences spoken by > > > aleks's speakers, except in a form that I consider, and hope, is > > > complete, or fool-proof. I don't know if John has addressed them, but > > > I would like to know what someone who thinks that you can't make > > > complete restrictions would find incomplete about them. > > > > Not sure what this would prove, but for example you had to assume > > that {cpana} admits stones on the game board, but not stones already > > The definition of {cpana} I was using then was "directly supported by > from below". > > > inside the bag. I don't have a problem with that, but it shows that > > what counts as cpana depends on the context. In other contexts, > > the stones already in the bag will count as being cpana the table, (for > > My used definition of {cpana} was wrong, I should have said {lamji cpana}. So you were excluding stones left on the board after the game had finished? Those were not asked to be put into the bag? > > example in "bring everything cpana the table into the house"), and > > I wouldn't be talking about just stones then - I'd be talking about > "things such that are on the table" - it just so happens that the > stones in the bag are a component part of that which is on the table > (i.e. the bag of stones). What if you lose some molecules of the thing on your trip to the house, are you still complying with the command? > > in yet another context, stones on the board won't count as being > > cpana the table (for example, in "when a stone is captured, you remove > > it from the board and put it cpana the table"). So your "put all white stones > > If you want to be precise about that one, you'd say "{lamji cpana} the > table", because if you said cpana you would indeed be saying "pick it > up from the board, and then put it somewhere where it's supported by > the table from below" (though usually the listener wouldn't be a twit > about it). Or you could (and probably would) just say "remove the > stone from the board". I'm not saying there is only one way to say it. I'm saying that there is no infinitely precise, invulnerable to irrelevant objections, way to say it. > It also depends on how words like "remove" and "put into" are defined > - is it "ensure that it is removed..", "ensure that it is in..", or do > they mean "perform the action of taking a stone off of the board", > "perform the action of putting the stone in from the outside"? Right. Words are never defined with such precision that your proposed {ro} could ever be applied with absolute certainty. > > that are on the table into the white bag" is perfectly clear, even excessive, > > given the context, but it is not context independent. > > I think that it is independant (of context). Given my responses, can > you think of other objections? Yes, this game can go on for ever. You give a "complete" description. I think of an objection that under normal circumstances would be irrelevant. You adjust either the description or the situation so that the objection no longer applies. I think of yet another normally irrelevant objection to the new description/situation. You adjust, etc. Even if at some point I can no longer think of an objection, what does that prove? Only that I'm not imaginative enough, not that the description you finally gave is precise to an absolute degree. > > > > Under normal circumstances none of > > > > those less-than-absolute-certainties interfere with understanding. > > > > > > By normal circumstances, you mean not instructions, contracts, etc.? > > > > No, I do mean to include those. For example the "all bears killed by people > > must be accounted for under the quota" that I cited was from a contract. > > The contract is probably using my{L_ cribe}, though context would be > very unambiguous in that contract. The contract really should say "all > bears in the X valley (henceforth referred to as 'da')"... Well, it seems clear enough to me as it stands: Notice that it does have a set of definitions at the beginning, but it doesn't make any distinction between real and imaginary bears, for example. It is taken for granted from the context that it's about real bears. And the sentence I quoted makes use of the context as set up at the beginning of the contract. > What I (and I think also you) actually want to say is "take all bears > such that are rinju (restrained by) that thing (that cage) to the > infirmary". > > So no, I assert that context doesn't specify the meaning of the word, > it's just that I messed up on my example(s) (erm, I blame English). A: Take all bears such that are rinju that cage to the infirmary. B: I'm afraid I can't do that, sir. A: Whyever not? B: See, just before you said "all bears such that are rinju that cage", an imaginary bear just popped in there, constrained by the cage and all, and then just popped out again. How could I possibly take it to the infirmary since it doesn't look like it's coming back. A: I didn't see any imaginary bears popping in there. B: That's probably because it was me who imagined it, sir. Besides, I imagined it popping in behind the big bear, so you wouldn't have seen it anyway. A: Take the bloody things to the infirmary right now, you ...! B: All right, all right, but you shouldn't go about using inner {ro} if you don't really mean it, sir. 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.