From lojban-out@lojban.org Mon May 22 15:07:25 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 50386 invoked from network); 22 May 2006 22:07:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.172) by m7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 22 May 2006 22:07:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 May 2006 22:06:50 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FiIY3-0003QA-Ib for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 22 May 2006 15:06:47 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FiIWB-0003Lm-QQ; Mon, 22 May 2006 15:04:55 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 22 May 2006 15:04:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FiIVk-0003Ld-Ha for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 22 May 2006 15:04:24 -0700 Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com ([64.233.162.194]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FiIVU-0003LR-IM for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 22 May 2006 15:04:24 -0700 Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id f1so1267440nzc for ; Mon, 22 May 2006 15:04:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.135.6 with SMTP id i6mr6779662nzd; Mon, 22 May 2006 15:04:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.153.14 with HTTP; Mon, 22 May 2006 15:04:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 16:04:07 -0600 In-Reply-To: <925d17560605220825n5df40f6bs6ea5d63c881dee2@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> <925d17560605201618u41770ed9ob343bbe248e22606@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605210914u7d4863b7qbf4a28a5fe3e72ee@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605211735x2bc459acw4f08020b726d5d6b@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605211914t5e0167ebx395b8ecbf89b2032@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605220825n5df40f6bs6ea5d63c881dee2@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11658 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=5cbrgz2Y3aU7i2h7P5plBwcz2PJja94Po8kNwpkg_s8are6qDw X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 26076 On 5/22/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 5/21/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > > > {ro} indicates that all things that count as brodas are being referred > > > to. Inner blank doesn't. > > > > "All" is turning out to be quite an ambiguous word. You probably don't > > mean "all (ever)", so do you mean "{ro} indicates that all things > > that, given the context, count as brodas are being referred to."? > > I don't think we are on the same page on "ambiguous" yet, but yes, > I do think that what counts as a broda may vary from one context > to another. > > For example, to show one difference between no inner quantifier and > inner {ro}: > > mi pu klama le zarci gi'e te vecnu lo mapku > I went to the market and bought hats. > > mi pu klama le zarci gi'e te vecnu lo ro mapku > I went to the market and bought all hats. > That's a very clear example. It seems that a blank inner for you means "the most contextually sensible set", and an inner ro means "all of the most contextually sensible set". I would think that this can be said just as well with: ... L_ mapku - bought hats ... su'o L_ mapku - bought some hats ... ro L_ mapku - bought all hats or do those have different meanings to you? > > There is no more context. I'm telling you that I want to say that, of > > all hypothetical things, concepts, - everything - that can ever be > > concieved by humans or otherwise, none of those things exist within > > the box. This is a very clear and unconvoluted thought: "nothing > > exists in the box". And I want to be able to express it as such, > > without having to constantly explain exactly what I mean, like I've > > been doing in every response since I brought the subject up. > > For "nothing exists in the box", {no da zasti ne'i le tanxe} works just > fine, as far as I can tell. You don't need to explain anything. That disguises the problem, but doesn't actually solve it. {no da zasti ne'i le tanxe} Zero things exist within the box. How is that expanded? Let's have an "in no way restricting" relationship called "X". {lo no X cu zasti ne'i le tanxe} all members in a set of 0 don't exist in the box (a non-statement) {no lo X cu zasti ne'i le tanxe} none of some contextually sensible group (!) are in the box {no lo ro X cu zasti ne'i le tanxe} none of all of (??) some contextually sensible group (!) are in the box Of the last two, I'm using your definitions for the blank inner, and for inner ro. I don't think that they're coming out as you intended. You can't say that "none of all 'things' exist in the box", because "all 'things'" is asserted by you to be inherently context-based: "all 'things' that are contextually sensible", and not actually "*all* 'things'" as I propose. > > For "of all hypothetical things, concepts, - everything - that can ever > be concieved by humans or otherwise, none of those things exist within > the box" you would use a similarly longwinded expression. It would be It's a simple concept that requires a long winded and incomplete expression because no other is available. > a waste to have some short phrase like {no da} reserved for something > so precise, given that it is rarely if ever needed. The fact that it's rarely if ever *used* is no indication that it's rarely if ever *needed*. People may avoid these long and ultimately incomplete descriptions, and use ambiguous terms instead. Perhaps they mean to say it constantly, but these ambiguous terms are always counted for them saying the other thing. Regardless, this argument isn't as important as the whole {no da} thing above. > > How do you need context > > to determine what "me" refers to? You don't. Though you do need the > > *setting*, which is something very different. > > (I do consider the setting to be part of the context of an utterance, but > leaving that aside) "me" refers to the speaker, and that's a pretty precise > thing indeed. That's not to say it's infinitely precise. For example: > "Look at me, not my feet" (that's an actual usage I got from Google). > Does looking at my feet count as looking at me? There is no definite, > absolutely certain answer valid for all contexts. Neither is one needed. > "Me" in the sense that we're talking about refers to the consciousness/identity of a person. "Me" can, yes, refer to "my eyes", or "my body". In some cases, it can even refer to a clone of your identity: "you're me, and I'm you". But we're talking about "me" as in "I", are we not? 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.