From lojban-out@lojban.org Sun May 21 15:23:05 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 44416 invoked from network); 21 May 2006 22:23:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.166) by m26.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 21 May 2006 22:23:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 May 2006 22:23:03 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FhwKD-0003oB-9y for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 21 May 2006 15:23:01 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FhwH5-0003mK-QR; Sun, 21 May 2006 15:19:52 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 21 May 2006 15:19:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FhwGd-0003mA-OW for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sun, 21 May 2006 15:19:19 -0700 Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com ([64.233.162.200]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FhwGa-0003lz-2t for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 21 May 2006 15:19:19 -0700 Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id f1so1038979nzc for ; Sun, 21 May 2006 15:19:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.37.21.15 with SMTP id y15mr5182441nzi; Sun, 21 May 2006 15:19:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.153.14 with HTTP; Sun, 21 May 2006 15:19:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 16:19:14 -0600 In-Reply-To: <925d17560605210914u7d4863b7qbf4a28a5fe3e72ee@mail.gmail.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: <925d17560605160731j379ecfdbo42862a88433e112c@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605180654r75d895f7s3bcaaa5ff79ed0f@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605190915l4c6a5017o5cae14790fb38b3b@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605200715t32c87d1dpf95ffb3023c95526@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605201618u41770ed9ob343bbe248e22606@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605210914u7d4863b7qbf4a28a5fe3e72ee@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11647 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: maxim.katcharov@gmail.com X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 2:12:4:0 X-eGroups-From: "Maxim Katcharov" From: "Maxim Katcharov" Reply-To: maxim.katcharov@gmail.com Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=oSsBwNrTPFrbphFOEs2hpchJ6fqr1AKeT3dXZ25s9dzVxOMG2g X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 26065 On 5/21/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 5/20/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > > > Context is anything that could aid you in determining what was meant > > by an ambiguous description, so yes. It's just that "me" (I this one > > speaker) is not ambiguous, and same for a word with a sticky tense > > applied - it's not ambiguous. > > There is a difference between ambiguity and vagueness. Lojban is very > good at avoiding ambiguity. Its syntax is unambiguous and it has no > homonyms, for example. Vagueness is an intrinsic property of > language, you can have more or less of it, but you can't eliminate it, > and too little vagueness is as bad as too much of it. I have trouble seeing much of a difference between ambiguity (multiple interpretations) and vagueness (not clearly expressed). Using those definitions, I would say that individual Lojban words are unambiguous, however, you can make phrases as ambiguous as you'd like. Vagueness would then be very rare in Lojban. "Too little vagueness[or ambiguity] is as bad as too much of it" sounds nice, but I don't see any truth to it. > > "Me" is not ambiguous, I agree. But it is not devoid of vagueness, you > still need context to undestand what it refers to. For example, in > "Look at these pictures, this is me in 1987 and this is me in 1995", > the referent of "me" changes from one use to the next. Not in that example. "Me" refers to an indentity, this identity is not different because it(s attributes) changed from 1987 to 1995. If I had said "this is who I was in 1987", you would notice that this implies a different identity - not "me", but as if to say "someone else". I can't imagine a use of "me" or "I" that is ambiguous. > > > I would not support having {L_ ro cribe} definitely mean {L_ ro cribe > > poi nenri la ...}, derived solely through context. > > Neither would I. Context can never give such definite answers, it can > only suggest, with greater or lesser force, that that is what is meant. > > > > {ro nai} is currently ungrammatical, though I think {nai} should be allowed > > > after any word. > > > > I think I agree with you, since it sounds a bit odd. Is {rome'i lo ro > > cribe cu zasti} proper then? > > {me'i} = {me'iro}, "less than all", but {rome'i} = {rome'iro}, "all, > less than all" > is either self-contradictory or the first {ro} is redundant, depending on how > you treat two adjacent quantifiers. (The wiki page for the BPFK section > on quantifiers has some proposal about that.) > > > > > > mi pu viska lo pixra skina i lo ro cribe pe ri cu dasni lo mapku > > > > > "I saw a cartoon. All bears in it wore hats." > > > > > > mi pu klama lo dalpanka i lo ro cribe pe ri cu dasni lo mapku > > > "I went to a zoo. All bears in it wore hats." > > > > > Yes, zasti-typeness is figured out from context. {pe} is, after all, > > highly context-based, and so are, usually, ti/ta/tu and friends. > ´ > {pe ri} = {poi ke'a srana ri}. It is not more context-based than other In what way do they pertain to the cartoon? What are you really saying? There are many ways that something can pertain to something else. If I'm a runner, I in some way pertain to the path I run on. What you're saying here is that the bears pertain to the cartoon, yes, but what they really are is "existing within the perceptual universe of the cartoon". Knowing that it's this and not some other type of "pertains" relies heavily on context. > restrictive clauses. The point here is that depending on what the > restriction is, the unrestricted set is changed. In one case it > includes non-existent bears and in the other it doesn't. > > We > > have ways to say "in India", and "in the year 1970", but let's say > > that we have a work of fiction based in India, 1970, and we want to > > assert things regarding that story. Like "Alice came to India in June" > > - that's surely not true, because this Alice is fictional/imaginary, > > and so never came to India. But in the book, she did! (Just like the > > bears never wore any hats, but in the cartoon, they did.) And we > > surely don't mean that imaginary-Alice came to India? Though perhaps > > we mean imaginary Alice came to imaginary India. And imagined by who? > > What if I wrote of two different imaginary Indias? I'd have to say > > which of these perceptual universes I mean. And if I share this story > > with you, don't you partake in this other perceptual universe with me? > > So really the imaginer doesn't matter. But when writing a story we'd > > have to say something like "Alice (an imaginary person) was on the > > (imaginary) ship as it approached the (imaginary) dock." Understand > > that I don't mean {xanri bloti}, I mean {bloti poi xanri la [Alice In > > India]} (the boat imagined by the book titled). Anyway, we have to do > > this, or we aren't being very logical, are we? Not that we have to be > > logical if we don't want to, even in Lojban. I'm just presenting it as > > something to think about. > > That's why context is so important. When we are reading a fictional work, > we know what the context is, we don't need to add "who is a fictional > character" every time we mention Alice, and indeed we shouldn't, because > within the context of the story she isn't. "We shouldn't" is wrong - it is, after all, the correct way to put it. I'd however agree strongly with "there must be an easier way". If I was absolutist, I would say that not only do you have to say "Alice picked up an imaginary ball" (or "ball such that exists in..."), but you'd have to say "rocks such that are cpana the table and such that exist in reality". It would be the most logical way to say it, and would probably induce much clearer thought and communication - but it'd be a pain, so I say that this whole exists/imaginary thing should be based on context. I don't know how x2 and x3 of zasti work, but it would be nice if x3 was "within perceptual universe". Or if there was another tense that said, in a sense, "in the land of" (defaulted to real world). ianis provides some examples that could benefit from this sort of thing in his latest message. > > > > > > (2) A semi-formal situation where for example an instructor with a prepared > > > > > speech explains the agreement to a group of people. They may start their > > > > > talk by saying: "In what follows, when I say 'bear' I will mean the grizzly > > > > > bears at GSA" and so on. > > > > > > (2a) Instead of saying "In what follows, when I say 'bear'..." the instructor > > > opens with "I am going to speak to you about the grizzlies at GSA" or > > > something of that sort, so he makes no explicit reservation of the word "bear". > > > Would that change anything for the later interpretation of {lo ro cribe > > > poi se catra lo prenu}, which may come perhaps twenty minutes later? > > > If yes, does that mean that one is forced to keep in mind not just the sense > > > of what the instructor is saying, which is basically the same in both cases, > > > but also the exact wording used? > > > > "I am going to speak to you about the grizzlies at GSA" implies "I am > > going to speak to you about *only* the grizzlies at GSA", which seems > > to be the same as "when I speak about bears, I mean only bears in > > GSA". > > Not logically, no. That I am going to talk about X does not preclude my > talking about Y too. It does suggest that when I say "all bears killed by Good. Then if he meant it as he said it, he would need to specify that he is talking about those bears, or not use {ro}, because he could at some point start talking about bears that aren't in GSA, right? > people" it will mean the grizzlies at GSA, but if I were to say "the bears > at GSA are not like bears in other places", then "bears in other places" > is obviously not restricted to bears at GSA. > > > I don't really see a difference, it's like me saying "I define > > bears as bears that are in GSA". It's not context, it's that you're > > editing the language for the purposes of the contract. > > Remember that in this case this is a talk, not a written contract where you > can go back and check how things were defined. You can't expect people > to keep an exact record in their memories of every word said. Just the > general sense of what has been said before can be used to interpret > later utterances. > > > > (2b) One of the attendees at the conference arrives late so they miss the > > > instructor's warning that they will use 'bear' to reffer to grizzlies at GSA. > > > When the instructor mentions that "all bears killed by people must be > > > accounted for under the quota", however, the late arrivee has no trouble > > > figuring out that it doesn't include bears that were killed by people two > > > hundred years ago in another continent. I predict that the same would happen > > > > Yes, the speaker can infer certain things, like that there's a mistake > > somewhere, from context anyway, even with my{ro}. The late person can > > ask what the instructor means by "all" - does he mean the entire > > forest? and get an answer - no, just the GSA. I can assume that you > > made a typo, and that you really mean ninmu and not nanmu. This > > doesn't mean that it's ok for the speaker to exclude that statement at > > the start of the lecture. He wouldn't be speaking the language > > correctly if he did. > > > > So looking at this from the perspective of the listener is probably > > not the right way to do it. After all, the speaker knows what bears > > he's referring to or making assertions about, and he knows that he > > used the language to properly describe them, and that the language fit > > his thoughts. > > OK, I guess we'll just have to disagree about that. I don't think Lojban > will differ from other languages in this regard. It doesn't. The listener may very well understand what is benig said anyway, but that doesn't mean that the speaker should misuse the language. If a listener could understand cpana to mean "somewhere 1km above" every time the speaker used it, because the speaker was mistaken about what it meant, does this mean that the speaker is using the language correctly? No. We're trying to provide a facility for things to be said should there be *no* mistake in communication. > > > > in English or in Lojban. Would you rather have a fluent Lojban speaker be > > > confused in that situation? (This situation is basically the same I faced > > > when reading this sentence for the first time, I only saw the single sentence > > > without knowing that it belonged to a formal agreement with definitions > > > at the beginning, and yet I understood immediately that they were not > > > talking about all bears ever. The very sense of the sentence itself made > > > that quite clear.) > > > > This to me shows that humans are capable of recognizing and working > > around mistakes in communication. This seems to be a way of saying > > "well, it's ok if we don't handle this concept of language, because > > the listener will in most cases get our point anyway". > > Only if you think it is a mistake. If I make a typo, and you can still figure > out what I mean, but when you point it out to me I agree that I made a typo, > that was a mistake. If I use inner {ro} in a way that does not refer > to everything > you expect it to refer (which I'm still not completely sure what it is), I may > accept that I was not precise enough for you, but not that I misused > the language. I will try to reword what I said, so that communication is > more successful, but I won't say "you're right, I said something I didn't mean, > what I really meant was...". But you did communicate something that you didn't intend to communicate... > Being vague, when precision is not called for, > is not the same as being sloppy in the use of the language. The degree > of vagueness that is acceptable and even necessary in any given situation > is a matter of pragmatics, and I don't have a full theory of pragmatics to > make explicit rules about when for example {lo ro broda} admits imaginary > brodas and when it doesn't. I just know that sometimes it does and some > times it doesn't. > > > > > > > (3) An informal situation: "You're new here, right? OK, then you have to know > > > > > this: all bears killed by people must be accounted for, no exceptions are > > > > > admitted". > > > > > > > > In this case I wouldn't use {ro}/"all": "...know this: bears killed by > > > > people...", or I'd probably say something like "all bears killed here > > > > must be accounted for", to which they may reply "disambiguate 'here'", > > > > to which I'd reply "lo Wasomething Settlement". > > > > > > But the "all" is important here, as emphasized by the "no exceptions are > > > admitted". Indeed the original had some other type of emphasis, something > > > > My blank inner assumes the most contextually sensible number of bears. > > In this case, the most sensible referent is "all bears in this place > > here" ("in this place here" being deduced from the preceding "you're > > new here, right?"). It is informal speech, after all. If he wanted to > > be a bit more precise, he'd speak less casually and provide the full > > restriction. > > What if he wanted to emphasize the {ro} but still remain informal. Something > like "*All* bears killed by people must be accounted for". How do you > emphasize a word that must be understood but cannot be pronounced? I'm not exactly sure. How do you emphasize intentional ambiguity in other cases? Like, say, if you wanted to emphasize that you meant all bears in *GSA*? And, assuming that your blank inner is different from your inner ro (which you seem to support, and I deny), how do you emphasize your blank inner? > > > My May 19th message asked: > > > > Show me how to say "nothing" (described above) via your method in a > > way that isn't convoluted. > > > > I would like you to address that. If you're still thinking, or have a > > way, please let me know. If you have no way to do it, then please > > consider the implications that that has on our discussion. > > As I said, I would use {no da} for almost any plain "nothing". I say > "almost" because maybe you can come up with a context where > something else might be better, but any nonconvoluted "nothing" > should be very well translated with {no da}. Rather than ask for a > translation of a single word, it is better to put it in a context. That > often makes translation easier. So you're saying that you have a way to say "nothing like dust", but no way to say "nothing", and so must rely on the user to guess. Which, of course in something like the "nothing is in the box" (where you mean an actual nothing), they'll just about always guess what you meant incorrectly. Yes, *this* a limited example, but it doesn't mean that it's ok for there to be no way to express it, and it is a much clearer reflection of this problem in other areas (where it's subtle, but still exists). Of my conditions: 1: Can a speaker actually restrict down to what their referant is? (i.e. "make a complete restriction"?) 2a: Is it important to be able to make complete restrictions? 2b: Is there something that the current model doesn't handle well that is handled by the proposed usage? 3: Is there room within the current model for the proposed usage? I think that 2b is proven "yes", and that 2a is proven "yes" by "there should not be anything that a human can think of that cannot be said (in Lojban) exactly with the precision with which it was thought". I think that 1 is proven "yes" most specifically by : me: "what have I failed to restrict?" xorxes: "For all practical purposes, nothing. In an absolute sense, I don't know" which is a part of the entire following (which you (xorxes) did not respond to): > > (1) A: Put (all the black stones that are cpana this table now) in > > this black bag > > > > Here's a rough idea of the situation, so that you don't think I'm > > changing anything: There's one table and one black bag in my > > perception. All the black stones supported-from-below-by the table are > > from the game-set (and therefore fit in their bag). There are no > > stones in the black bag, because they were dumped out, so saying just > > cpana is exactly what I want to say. > > So, what have I failed to restrict? > > For all practical purposes, nothing. In an absolute sense, I don't know, What do you mean you don't know? You think that the stones might actually be dried berries/plastic imitations, or what? I assure you that I'm talking about typical stones, and that they fit both our models of what stones should be very well. Yes, a crazy person might exist that calls them elephants, but between you and me, I think that this restriction is 100% complete. > because I don't have full access to the situation that you are imagining. > I assume for example that you are not imagining any stones that can > just disappear before I grab them, or stones that may turn into bears, or ... > but how can I be absolutely certain? I've said that my perception of any language requires that anything that isn't part of a zasti-type relationship (..imaginary, hypothetical...) have an implicit zasti, so no, they aren't imaginary. And they aren't holograms, I would have called them stone-holograms if they were. 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.