From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed May 17 19:34:31 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 80998 invoked from network); 18 May 2006 02:27:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.67.34) by m33.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 18 May 2006 02:27:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 May 2006 02:27:58 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FgYF0-00047d-AU for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 17 May 2006 19:27:54 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FgYEa-00046q-Q3; Wed, 17 May 2006 19:27:30 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 17 May 2006 19:27:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FgYDb-00045s-Gx for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 17 May 2006 19:26:27 -0700 Received: from web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.120]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FgYDZ-00045k-QF for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 17 May 2006 19:26:27 -0700 Received: (qmail 20269 invoked by uid 60001); 18 May 2006 02:25:45 -0000 Message-ID: <20060518022544.20267.qmail@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.237.229.49] by web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 17 May 2006 19:25:44 PDT Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 19:25:44 -0700 (PDT) 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: 11599 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0 X-eGroups-From: John E Clifford From: John E Clifford Reply-To: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=ZS8-RMu876KgLzrMZUh_oBnYH8redWzyb1fxP_IlFHAintGFeg X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 26018 --- Maxim Katcharov wrote: > On 5/17/06, John E Clifford > wrote: > > MK's proposal in a nutshell. (For > corrections, > > additions, explanations, etc.) > > A draft, yep. Very much so. > > 1. 1. Lojban's method of introducing > new > > referents is inefficient, ineffective and > > incomplete. > > No. I believe that it's clearly efficient, and > it's effective, Glad to hear that. > but: > a) it does not cover situations where context > is ambiguous > b) it is ineffective where it's critical (or > where you want) to be > fully unambiguous > > I'd like it to be very clear that I am not > arguing /against/ the > current method, but that I'm essentially > arguing for a method to cover > areas where the current method fails. > > I see the method that I'm presenting as the > proper way to say things, > where the method currently used is a /very/ > useful shortcut. But we > shouldn't have to rely on this shortcut - a > paved road should be > available if we need to haul something > important. > > I argue against anyone who says that the > current method covers > everything. I argue that this method will cover "this method" = the one you are proposing (not the current one) > (a), and will just > about completely cover (b), and so is better > than the current method > (shortcut) on its own. > > > Lojban descriptions depend upon unmentioned > > factors which conversants infer from the flow > of > > the discourse and from the physical > environment > > in which the discourse occurs. In > particular, > > the set of things having a mentioned property > is > > restricted to those things of that sort that > are > > relevant to the discourse at the moment. The > > inferences involved in correctly identifying > the > > referent of a given description may be long > and > > complex and the factors on which they are > based > > No. They needn't be long and complex at all. > They are usually quite > simple, it's just that there is a significant > number of cases where > there are a lot of simple interpretations. I don't get this point. Most inferences are not complex (glad to hear you say so, though I think a very large percentage are complex) but ... what? Is this just ambiguity, cases where several interpretations are equally well justified and there is no deciding factor? > > may not be obvious to all the conversants. > Thus, > > there is a strong possibility that the > referent > > will be missed, requiring further discussion > to > > correct the mistake. But especially, this > > relativization of reference makes it > impossible > > to refer to the things which have the > property in > > question but are not relevant to the > discourse so > > far, for example, to jump from the bears we > have > > been talking about to all bears absolutely > (ever, > > existent, imaginary, merely possible, etc.) > or > > even just all in the area, including those we > > have not been talking about. > > It's not strictly impossible to refer to things > completely now. It's > just that the method proposed for doing so is > very crude and attempts > to solve problems after the fact. And sure, you > can clear up what you > meant after the fact, but sometimes that's not > very useful, and it's > never as useful as clearing it up > pre-emptively. Since I would introduce talk about all bears, past, present, future, merely possible, and also the impossible ones, by saying something like just that, unless the flow of the discussion had made some parts of that obvious, I don't see what could be better. And, of course, this is just the method I would propose for doing this. How is yours less crude (come to that, how is this crude)? This is not argumentative, just seeking more information about just what your complaints and your correctives are. > > 2. In every situation (a discourse > carried > > on in a given environment), for any object or > > group of objects, there is a description > that > > applies (and will be seen to apply) to > exactly > > that object or group. Further, this > description > > does not rely on the flow of discourse and > > relies on the environment only for ostention; > > that is, it relies only on overtly mentioned > > properties and deixis. It thus avoids the > > difficulties that make Lojban descriptions so > > fallible. And, being not relativized to the > > discourse, it can introduce things that are > not > > already relevant to this discourse. > > Yes, roughly, though I'll have nothing to do > with the phrase "that > make Lojban descriptions so fallible" - they > aren't "so" fallible: > they're very good for most circumstances. It's > just that they don't > cover things as well something could be > covered. Glad to hear it, again. I put these remarks about the failings of Lojban in to get some motivation for the proposal. I see that a lesser motive was meant and will suffice. > darves: I hope that John has addressed your > objection, because I'm > uncertain of how it relates to this point #2. > It seems to relate to > what I said previously regarding how we all > have a limit of what we no > longer consider a bear. Most of the time, our > differing limits will > not cause a problem. Even the nominalist, for > all practical purposes, > will understand me when I talk of some three > bears, and won't argue > that they aren't bears because they don't > perfectly match the "ideal" > bear. A nominalist will certainly not talk abbout an ideal bear; he is committed to there being no such thing (and, indeed, no general property of being a bear). > > 3. Lojban needs a way to use these > > descriptions ("complete descriptions") > clearly > > I call them "complete restrictions" - that is, > no other restrictions > implied by context are applicable. > > > marked as such. Since these descriptions > tend to > > You don't quite mark them. You simply say that > you mean *all* (every > single...), and this incidetally always is a > sign that the restriction > is complete. But, since the present system uses {lo ro broda} to refer to a contextually restricted (rather than overtly restricted) group, you are taking {ro} to be used only for complete restrictions; that is, it is a clear indicator that the description is complete (else it would be incorrect to use this expression). > > be longer than the ones Lojban ordinarily > uses, > > and the ordinary ones work well enough for > > ordinary cases (when we mean to stay within > the > > already given bounds of relevance), Lojban > should > > keep most of it present descriptions for the > > ordinary cases, but some redundant or little > used > > form should be set aside for complete > > descriptions. > > Yes, roughly. But this implies that I want to > include some marker or > whatever, which makes this sound somewhat > weird. Let's just say that I > want {ro} to mean "damn well *all*. Every one. > Not just the ones in > context - no. I mean every one, that will > exist, exists, has existed, > [and so on]". I am afraid I don't see the distinction you are making here. I suppose it is that {ro} does not SAY the description is complete, only that it is proper to use it only if the description is complete (and thus the parallel for the present system where {ro} does not SAY "all relevant cases," but is used in such a way that tha is what the referent turns out to be). >I'm saying that the idea that {L_ > ro cribe} should mean > "all such that are relevant and such that are > bears" is *strange* - > {L_ ro cribe} should be "all such that are > bears". If you want to say > "the most contextually sensible number", just > leave the inner blank, > and the listener will assume exactly that. Well, I wouldn't, but we are dealing with your understanding of Lojban for now, so I'll take that as a given. > > 4. The form {lo ro broda} is redundant > for > > relativized descriptions and so could be used > for > > how are you defining "relativized > descriptions"? > === message truncated === <<> 4. The form {lo ro broda} is redundant for > relativized descriptions and so could be used for how are you defining "relativized descriptions"?>> That is one which picks its referent only from those established as relevant by the flow of discourse so far. <<> complete ones (and only for them). In > relativized descriptions, {lo ro broda} refers to > all the brodas relevent to the discourse so far, > but this is just what {lo broda} refers to in > relativized descriptions. Further, since a Yes, I find the blank inner and the inner {ro} redundant. > complete description exactly specifies its > referent, we are indeed interested in all such > things. The expression {lo ro broda} would thus > be accurate in terms of Lojban meaning, which the > present, relativized, {lo ro broda} is not: in > the latter {ro} does not mean "all" but "all > relevant ones" or some such. I'm not sure I understand what is being said here, but yes, {lo ro broda} by my proposal does /not/ mean "all: such that are brodas and/'intersect' such that are relevant/in context". > 5. So, Lojban should adopt the convention > that {lo ro broda} indicates that {broda} (which > may be complex, of course) is a complete What is meant by "which may be complex"? That you can {poi} it? Yes, you can, and most usually will {poi} it.>> I just meant that {broda} stands in for (as it always does) what ever the total predication expression is, including {poi}s and tanrus and whatever else can go there (modals, ....). <<> description of the intended referent. And, > wherever using a relativized description > involves vagueness or ambiguity – or even just > complications that extend the needed inferences > unduly -- in the background on which > description, > complete descriptions should be used instead. Yes, this seems correct. > And, of course, always for cases where the domain > of relevance in a discourse is being changed, > whether by restriction or expansion. No, not always. If it serves your purpose to change context in the usual way (which I've referred to as "saying something that makes no sense in the given context, therefore you must be talking in a different context"), you can go ahead and do that.>> These seem to me usually just to be cases of being more explicit about what is meant. Of course, since this is a shift of relevance, it will appear incongruous, but that is not a significant part of its functioning. << But if you want to be precise in this context shift, you now have that ability. > A. Tied in with this, though not essential to > it, is the claim that, for every property, P, > there is a set (or whatever) of all the things > that have (now, at some other time, in the realm > of possibility, …) and that this set (…) is the > referent of {lo ro P} (as corrected by the Yes, though the bounds of this set may vary from individual to individual. This is rarely a practical problem, especially if one assumes that the speaker's bounds (assuming that the bounds are somewhat sensible) at the time they said it are the bounds that should be considered.>> This emendation is problematic for me since it seems to say both that there is a single unique set of everything that has a certain property and also that this set may be different for different people. How can this be? If the set is unique it is not relative to a person and contrapositively. < proposal). Relativized descriptions may be made > complete by explicit restrictions carving out > subsets of this set. If I understand what you mean correctly, then not quite: they're made complete when you say "listener, I mean *all* of them, and therefore it is implied that you shouldn't use context to cut the set down further".>> I guess my point is that, when a description is relativized so that it does not refer to all of them, it can be made complete by adding explicitly what was supplied implicitly by context, so that it does refer to all of the new them. 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.