From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed May 17 19:27:36 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 67909 invoked from network); 18 May 2006 02:27:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.67.35) by m34.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 18 May 2006 02:27:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 May 2006 02:27:35 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FgYEd-00047A-KY for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 17 May 2006 19:27:31 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FgYD0-000455-4m; Wed, 17 May 2006 19:25:54 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 17 May 2006 19:25:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FgYCB-00043m-2f for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 17 May 2006 19:24:59 -0700 Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com ([64.233.162.195]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FgYC6-00043e-Qu for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 17 May 2006 19:24:58 -0700 Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id f1so383793nzc for ; Wed, 17 May 2006 19:24:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.250.61 with SMTP id x61mr533nzh; Wed, 17 May 2006 19:24:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.153.14 with HTTP; Wed, 17 May 2006 19:24:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 20:24:30 -0600 In-Reply-To: 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: <20060517151821.39056.qmail@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11598 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: A (rather long) discussion of {all} X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=Rb5HA-GB77NzT2sufR_hw_FLpHp0QlV6Y5nbye5WEwNQIrBCgg X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 26016 On 5/17/06, Alex Martini wrote: > > Despite the unrealistic use of "tiger days", I'll reply on your terms. > > The court is stating that the restriction given, "all tuesdays", was > > not the one intended. It's saying that both parties screwed up in > > writing the contract. This is a result of the ambiguity of "all". If > > the word "ool" was defined as "every single one. Yes, those too. NO > > EXCEPTIONS", and it was used in a contract, how do you think that this > > hypothetical court would have ruled? Speakers of a language with a > > word like "ool" would be well versed in the dangers of using it, and > > would indeed be better contract writers - I'm sure that you've heard > > of clauses like > > > > "...on all tuesdays from [...] to [...]. The milk company reserves the > > right to not serve milk on days that are unreasonable in the sole > > judgement of the milk company." > > > > in real contracts, yes? > > > > This idea of 'absolutely all, with no exceptions whatsoever' as a > definition for 'all' seems to have been batted around a bit by this > point. I don't find that I use it in normal conversation -- does > anyone have a good example of actual usage in this way? (in context > would be better than more designed examples). I have a feeling that > it is really seldom, if ever, used. Even formal contracts have a > habit of tacking on restrictions during the negotiations. > "All the white rocks now on the table", that sort of thing. Keep in mind that English doesn't distinguish between the "all ever" use and the "all in context" use very well, so it's up to context to determine which definition should be used. My {ro} is very rarely used without actually being restricted by something. You misunderstand my proposal if you think that the only thing you'd be using my {ro} for is saying "all bears", or "all runners". 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.