From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed May 10 19:22:49 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 35921 invoked from network); 11 May 2006 02:22:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.166) by m23.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 May 2006 02:22:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 May 2006 02:22:48 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fe0pC-0006oS-1H for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 10 May 2006 19:22:46 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fe0o0-0006nj-Gl; Wed, 10 May 2006 19:21:34 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 10 May 2006 19:21:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fe0nX-0006nT-O4 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 10 May 2006 19:21:03 -0700 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.228]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fe0nU-0006nD-M1 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 10 May 2006 19:21:03 -0700 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 67so290371wri for ; Wed, 10 May 2006 19:20:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.62.6 with SMTP id k6mr158642wra; Wed, 10 May 2006 19:20:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.126.17 with HTTP; Wed, 10 May 2006 19:20:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560605101920o84917e4t99c4dc0b2b9d9b6c@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 23:20:59 -0300 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: <925d17560605100646o576097b7n1eb81fa3d7c681df@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605101536r3efb57c0re1125ff3301a3403@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605101635x1702203cu13e8397e3ee956ea@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605101754ibf2c8k435cb516bfee8b32@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11478 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@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: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" Reply-To: jjllambias@gmail.com Subject: [lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=_mchukaergJm1FYaSLRxkG4nl1jLGG-1Vvu8SvFgoKieOQ_VWg X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 25895 On 5/10/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > On 5/10/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > > It is not "all" that is open to interpretation, it is "bear" (or whatever > > the predicate). The set of things that satisfy a given predicate > > relevantly depends on the context of the utterance. > > So you're talking about verificity? I thought that we had put this aside. No, I'm not, I'm talking about what's relevant and what isn't. In most contexts imaginary bears will be irrelevant, and so they won't be referents of {lo ro cribe}, but in some context they might be relevant and so be part of the universe of discourse. > {sai} or {cai} aren't a solution, they're a hack that ... well, for > the purposes of this discussion, make it hard for me to give you a > sensible example. But one still exists that completery breaks the two: > we have two favorite cubs, out of a litter of 5, in a > group-owned-by-us of 10, and they're all playing with some other cubs, > in a large group. And I suddenly start talking to you about "all > bears" (however wrong I may be). For all you know, I may be talking > about the two cubs (your {ro}), In that context, {lo ro cribe} could not be just the two cubs. You already mentioned many more bears and therefore they are necessarily a part of the universe of discourse. Just by mentioning something you make it a part of the discourse. > the litter (uh, {ro sai}), our bears > (...{ro cai}?), the bears in the forest that surround us, the bears in > the country that we're in, whatever. Point being, there could me more > than 3 contexts that are a lot more sensible than "all bears". In a given discourse the context is always one. As the conversation proceeds, things can be added to the universe of discourse, but to make an interpretation of a sentence you must first have the context pinned down somehow. > I mean, > given the nature of talking about all bears, there's /usually/ more > than 3 contexts that are more applicable than it. But I want to talk > about all bears. I'm trying to start a philosophical discussion or > whatever. How do you manage in English? Why would it be any harder in Lojban? You simply say: "Let's now talk about all bears that ever existed, or could have existed" or something like that. Position 1: There is a determinate number of 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. Position 2: The things that satisfy any 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 position 1 is simply unworkable. Notice however that anyone who thinks it is workable can try to stick with it. Whenever someone uses position 2 you simply mention to them whatever you think they may heve left out, thinking it was irrelevant, and then you force them to adopt your position, because you have introduced into the universe of discourse what had so far been irrelevant. If you do it consistently people will just think you are a pest (introducing an irrelevant interpretation once can be funny, twice can be forgiven, but doing it constantly it becomes obnoxious). mu'o mi'e xorxes 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.