From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed May 17 18:07:15 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 88692 invoked from network); 18 May 2006 01:07:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.167) by m22.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 18 May 2006 01:07:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 May 2006 01:07:13 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FgWvo-0001xZ-MD for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 17 May 2006 18:04:01 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FgWv2-0001q2-6i; Wed, 17 May 2006 18:03:15 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 17 May 2006 18:03:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FgWuB-0001mM-17 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 17 May 2006 18:02:19 -0700 Received: from mxsf07.cluster1.charter.net ([209.225.28.207]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FgWu7-0001ll-FI for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 17 May 2006 18:02:18 -0700 Received: from mxip28a.cluster1.charter.net (mxip28a.cluster1.charter.net [209.225.28.187]) by mxsf07.cluster1.charter.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k4I12Did020792 for ; Wed, 17 May 2006 21:02:13 -0400 Received: from 24-247-28-251.dhcp.bycy.mi.charter.com (HELO [192.168.123.137]) ([24.247.28.251]) by mxip28a.cluster1.charter.net with ESMTP; 17 May 2006 21:02:13 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.05,139,1146456000"; d="scan'208"; a="1139359862:sNHT114105586" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v750) In-Reply-To: References: <20060517151821.39056.qmail@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 21:02:11 -0400 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.750) X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11592 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: alexjm@umich.edu 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: Alex Martini From: Alex Martini Reply-To: alexjm@umich.edu Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=k1v433lZ8rxBVbTkUHIqhtKU4Op-opVmZ2QBL77hziMg26bpxQ X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 26010 [ li'o ] > > On 5/17/06, John E Clifford wrote: >> Contracts are, alas, rather cases of one of the >> sort of thing I am pointing out, namely that you >> cannot actually cover all the cases by a simple >> description (or a complex one for that matter). >> Consider a contract between a customer and a >> dairy for the dairy to deliver two quarts of >> milk to the customer's home every Thursday. One >> Thursday a tiger escaped from a circus and was >> roamin in the area of the customer's home and >> attacking people. The dairy told its deliveryman >> not to deliver the customer's milk that day. The >> customer sued for breach of contract (Thursday >> but no milk). The court ruled for the defendant, >> saying that contract did not have to say "except >> on tiger days" for this to be an exception; tiger >> days just don't count as Thursdays for this >> contract. The ruling was affirmed on appeal. >> Here is as unambiguous a description as possible >> and yet it too is relative to some interests, >> which interests may not be dealt with beforehand. > > 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. ki'e mu'omi'e .aleks. 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.