From lojban-out@lojban.org Fri May 12 14:20:24 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 55493 invoked from network); 12 May 2006 21:20:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.172) by m26.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 12 May 2006 21:20:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 May 2006 21:20:23 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fef3c-00036Q-OG for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 12 May 2006 14:20:20 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fef2s-00030F-Te; Fri, 12 May 2006 14:19:36 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 12 May 2006 14:19:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fef2Q-0002w5-Fd for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 12 May 2006 14:19:06 -0700 Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com ([64.233.162.192]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fef2M-0002vy-3t for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 12 May 2006 14:19:06 -0700 Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id n29so493889nzf for ; Fri, 12 May 2006 14:19:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.96.15 with SMTP id t15mr246947nzb; Fri, 12 May 2006 14:18:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.153.14 with HTTP; Fri, 12 May 2006 14:19:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 15:19:00 -0600 In-Reply-To: <20060512145338.98086.qmail@web81314.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: <20060512145338.98086.qmail@web81314.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11522 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: 1:12:0:0 X-eGroups-From: "Maxim Katcharov" From: "Maxim Katcharov" Reply-To: maxim.katcharov@gmail.com Subject: [lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=MXt6qELkX9_lP5F1Pm06wNh3HjGTodqYKBmDJyASOa3t96tpuA X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 25939 On 5/12/06, John E Clifford wrote: > --- Maxim Katcharov > wrote: > > > On 5/11/06, John E Clifford > > wrote: > > > Well, I am not sure how much more clearly > > since I > > > am not clear what the two approaches are that > > you > > > see as being used and as bsiing inconsistent > > with > > > one another. It seems to me that if the > > Lojban > > > > Quoting xorxes: > > > > < > things that satisfy > > the predicate {cribe}, independent of any > > context whatsoever. Therefore > > in any context {lo ro cribe} refers to all and > > exactly those things.>> > > But who exactly holds this? To be sure, we can I hold this position, and you're arguing against it and for only Position 2. I'm arguing for including both this position /and/ Position 2. > > > < > predicate may vary with > > context. In a given context {lo ro cribe} > > refers to all and exactly the > > things that in that context satisfy the > > predicate {cribe} (not just the > > things present where the speaker is, mind you, > > all the things that > > relevantly satisfy the predicate).>> > > I think there may be some confusion in > terminology going on here, between what is in > context and what is relevant. I suspect I have > been using them interchangeably and xorxes seem > to be doing so, too, at least until recently. > The context involved and the relevance are both > features of the flow of conversation, not just > the physical location or the like; the domain of > discourse (which is again the things relevant in > the context) is ideational (or linguistic), not > physical or sensory, expands and contracts with > what is being said (and charting the exact flow > is not something that anyone has tried to do > beyond noting what is in or out at a given point > in the conversation -- and whether the steps have > been taken to assure that all conversants have > essentially the same view). One form of context is the setting (let's call it the setting from now on), and the other is this flow of discourse. The flow of discourse is used by the listener to determine what the speaker is saying (I would call this the context of the conversation/things that are relevant). Is this correct? I'm proposing that we give the speaker the option to be definitely precise, meaning that the listener doesn't have to rely on context, and can take the words of the speaker exactly as they are. > > > > use of {ro} is inconsistent, then so is the > > > English use of "all," the main difference I > > see > > > > Yes, it is. Just like the English use of most > > English words is inconsistent. > > This seems a very odd thing to say. It appears > to be either false -- since English shows no > signs of collapsing in the way that inconsistency > would be expected to create -- or to involve a It need not collapse. In English, there are many shortcuts, and multiple meanings to a word that may require clarification. I mean, look, I've been saying "all bears (existing before, now, future, imaginary, hypothetical...)" every time I want to get the idea of "all bears" across, without it being the confused with "all bears in context" (a.k.a. "all relevant bears"). Just because it can be done this way, doesn't mean that it's the right or best way. I was stating that your definition fails under my example, not that humans are incapable of circumventing such failures. What I mean by inconsistent is that you use Position 1 when it suits you. Or it may be better described as a hack. Hack or inconsistency, I oppose either. Look at the most recent "2/20 certain bears in a cage, I want all bears in the cage" example I responded to xorxes with. > > > > I understand this usage of {ro}, and my {L_ > > cribe} (a lack of ro) > > implements this usage. > > But, since it does not involve {ro}, it does not > implement that usage. Do you mean (I suppose you It implements the usage ('idea behind') "this" (your) {ro}, it doesn't actually use it. > do) that your expression {lo cribe} ({le} doesn't > really have a role in all this) says the same > thing as standard {lo ro cribe} (or, as you would > say, "{lo ro cribe} in this sense")? This flies > in the face of established Lojban usage, where > {lo cribe} is (loosely speaking, since this is an > area of controversy -- but your suggestion is not > in the range) an unspecified bunch of bears, > maybe one, maybe all, maybe somewhere in between, > and maybe some suprabear entity that is > represented by those things or functions > autonomously. In no case is it delimited as all > the relevent bears in the context. > Sure it does. If the listener properly understands {L_ cribe} to mean an unspecified bunch of bears, maybe one, maybe[...], then he has correctly picked out all the relevant bears. To which I expect you to say "no, all relevant bears means all the ones that we've brought up in the course of the discourse". I'd ask you to provide an example of when do you ever want to refer to all bears in the discourse, when this isn't better handled by {L_ cribe}. You seem to suggest that the group of all bears brought up within a discourse is important. It isn't. The individual groups brought up are important (all bears in the forest, all bears who have died, or whatever the current context suggests), but the group that is the combination of all these is pretty much useless. > However, your {__ ro > > cribe} implements this > > usage, /and/ another usage - either "jump out > > of context", or "all > > ever" -- the former I consider basically the > > same as the first usage > > (and thus useless), the latter I implement with > > {L_ ro cribe}. > > The standard {lo ro cribe} refers always and > everywhere, so far as I can tell, to all the > relevant bears in the context, but, notice, may > itself be part of setting that context, if the > domain is to shift with repect to bears. Now, > the process of shifting domains is a tricky one, > as are all oves involving the Gricean > conversational conventions, and we have to pick > our way through them with care. You have shown > in other places that you are aware of the > minefield and have done some picking -- not, I > think totally accurately, but usefully for making > your point. Starting with the bears currently in > the zoo, who are in the instant case clearly in > the domain, we want to jump to, say, all > currently existing bears. So we say {lo ro cribe > poi zasti}. This might, of course, be to > restrict the previous range of bears to the > existing ones (it previously included some > defunct and some imaginary ones, and so on), but > the speaker (and presumably the rest of the > conversants) hold that domain was already only > existing bears (the question "Did you see all of > them?" pretty much sets that in place), so this > is an expansion of the domain. If this does not Right, you have to say something that would be nonsensical within the current context (a.k.a. domain) in order to indicate that you're moving into some new domain. This is a hack. Observe my strategy for moving between domains halfway through my last response to xorxes. There's no guesswork on the listener's part, no need for hacks. > > > > Yep. These factors are used to help the > > listener pick out which things > > are being spoken of. Another (or at least > > another use of) context is > > using it to place things relative to it: if we > > didn't have this > > context, we wouldn't know what "now", or > > "before", or "tomorrow", or > > "here" meant, because they're all relative to > > the current context. The > > latter is necessary just about always, but the > > former is only > > necessary when you aren't being precise enough > > (when you aren't > > restricting enough). > > Actually, in the theory, moist of these examples > are relative not to the whole context but only to > the occasion of utterance, a relatively > controllable component of the context. > Sure. My point is that they're part of the setting-context, and not the domain-context. > > When I say "this pen here-now on my table is > > blue", I use relative > > context (the latter), and disambiguating > > context is unnecessary > > altogether. > > I don't see the point here (though I am glad to > see that specificity is no longer a part of the Hehe. I've by no means abandoned it. We'll get back to this alleged specificity when this is over. > issue). I can often be precise enough to get > down to a single possible referent within the > context (the occasion of utterance is a part of > the context, after all, however separately > treatable). Are you saying only that we can > always (a rather risky claim, so "usually") > specify the referent of an expression uniquely, > so that there is no possibility of anyone being > in any doubt. Given the things one can doubt if Yes, my inner {ro} would leave the listener without any doubt. > one sets one's mind to it, I'll withdraw that > last bit, but surely we can specify so thoroughly > that all reasonable uncertainties are assuaged. > Sure. We don't usually go to such extremes, > however, unless forced to it by the failure of > more normal means. If your normal means fail, you lack the facility for this sort of precision. I try to show this in my caged bears example. 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.