From lojban-out@lojban.org Thu May 11 15:06:37 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 39315 invoked from network); 11 May 2006 22:06:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.167) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 May 2006 22:06:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 May 2006 22:06:34 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FeJIl-0003bu-1P for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 11 May 2006 15:06:31 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FeJH3-0003YM-Vl; Thu, 11 May 2006 15:04:48 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 11 May 2006 15:04:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FeJG7-0003Xq-KX for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 11 May 2006 15:03:47 -0700 Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com ([64.233.162.198]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FeJG3-0003Xf-RF for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 11 May 2006 15:03:47 -0700 Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id n29so282507nzf for ; Thu, 11 May 2006 15:03:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.148.17 with SMTP id v17mr1599435nzd; Thu, 11 May 2006 15:03:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.153.14 with HTTP; Thu, 11 May 2006 15:03:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 16:03:42 -0600 In-Reply-To: <20060511170511.35518.qmail@web81304.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: <20060511170511.35518.qmail@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11496 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=9tvgM62eqvSgt9Y2op_nmW0gEJPemt9RSZpPOeCBbu0gTs3A8w X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 25913 On 5/11/06, John E Clifford wrote: > I'm still not clear about the point of all this. > Apparently you are saying either that {ro} in > Lojban does not work as it has been taken to work > or that it ought not be used as it is. The first Yes. Both, but more clearly: I'm presenting a case where {ro} is applied inconsistantly. It's used just fine because two seperate concepts of {ro} are used interchangably. A few emails ago, xorxes presented two positions - my current task is to show that they are being used interchangably, and that using them interchangably is inconsistant, and hence a bad thing. > --- Maxim Katcharov > wrote: > > > On 5/10/06, John E Clifford > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > --- Maxim Katcharov > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On 5/9/06, John E Clifford > > > > wrote: > > > > > --- Maxim Katcharov > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > {__ __ ro cribe} refers to all bears. > > At > > > > the > > > > > > very least all things > > > > > > that were, are, and will be bears, > > > > everywhere > > > > > > (maybe even imaginary > > > > > > bears, story-bears, dreamt-bears, or > > > > > > hypothetical > > > > > > I'm-afraid-a-bear-will-eat-me bears) - > > > > > > henceforth "all bears". > > > > > > > > > > Well, no. {_ _ ro cribe} refers to all > > the > > > > bears > > > > > relevant in the present context, which > > may be > > > > > anything from the couple specifed to all > > the > > > > > actual and possible bears. In a neutral > > > > context, > > > > > it usually means all current actual > > bears. > > > > > > > > I understand this and see the utility. But > > I > > > > also see a major problem: > > > > this approach makes it so that Lojban has > > no > > > > way to refer to all bears > > > > specifically (specifically as in the > > opposite > > > > of vague in "in Lojban > > > > you can express things as specifically or > > > > vaguely as you'd like"). > > > > What if context overwhelmingly favors three > > > > bears? For example, three > > > > bears are chasing us -- I say {__ __ ro > > cribe}, > > > > and obviously I mean > > > > all these three bears, right? But what if > > my > > > > intent is to say "all > > > > bears can't climb trees"? (however wrong I > > may > > > > be.) I have no proper > > > > (and consistent) way to say this, because > > in > > > > this case using an inner > > > > {ro} clearly would default it to "all of > > the > > > > bears chasing us here-now > > > > can't climb trees", which is not what I > > want to > > > > say. > > > > > > First of all, what is the relevant context is > > > largely the speaker's choice, though he has > > an > > > obligation to bring the hearer onto his page > > if > > > he goes to far from the "obvious" context. > > In > > > the second place, the limitiations of context > > > > Then use my blank inner, "all in context". > > You're trying to provide > > reasoning for why I'd never be able to restrict > > absolutely, and you > > simply won't be able to do it. {ro __ ro penbi > > poi [in my hand {nau}]} > > means one, single thing, and exactly the one > > I'm talking about (it's > > an absolute restriction). The only vague things > > are vi, ca, and > > perhaps even nau. If I change those into poi, > > "the one that is within > > a meter of me and 1 minute of this-time", then, > > well, there you go. > > The imperfection of my examples really doesn't > > obscure my point here. > > I am not sure what "restrict absolutely" means > here. You may be able to give a description that > only one thing in fact (or maybe even in > principle) meets. It will not be perfectly > precise (we dould always find features that are > not covered and that might conceivably make a > difference), just precise enough to pick out a > unique referent (if any). Note that this is Precision in picking out a referant has nothing to do with describing the referant down to the last molecule. It's enough to give a description that only the-thing(s)-you-refer-to can meet. > still not specific in the relevant sense (if this > is still part of the discussion). The speaker can > add to even this whatever is needed to assure > that the hearer is has the same view of context > as he does. Just saying "in context" does not > help, since it is always in context; what is > needed -- if anything is -- is to clarify what > context is vbeing used (or, in other words, what > things are to be counted as referentws of {penbi} > or {cribe} for present purposes). > So the meaning of {penbi} can change based on context? I really do disagree, unless you're talking about verificity. 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.