From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue May 16 18:38:01 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 19294 invoked from network); 17 May 2006 01:38:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.67.35) by m34.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 17 May 2006 01:38:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 17 May 2006 01:38:00 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FgAz9-0007MC-8w for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 16 May 2006 18:37:59 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FgAyd-0007LH-HA; Tue, 16 May 2006 18:37:30 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 16 May 2006 18:37:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FgAyB-0007KQ-8l for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 16 May 2006 18:36:59 -0700 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.227]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FgAy8-0007KI-J2 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 16 May 2006 18:36:59 -0700 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i21so100134wra for ; Tue, 16 May 2006 18:36:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.129.12 with SMTP id b12mr1769190wrd; Tue, 16 May 2006 18:36:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.126.17 with HTTP; Tue, 16 May 2006 18:36:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560605161836n48cdbcc8te6ddc2d279fe96ac@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 22:36:55 -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: <925d17560605160731j379ecfdbo42862a88433e112c@mail.gmail.com> <20060516180605.9560.qmail@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11577 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: A (rather long) discussion of {all} X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=fiRi7ffJ9tXouz4ByHS7JGWcJW5DQvtguzZ4127iLB-RveJf9Q X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 25995 On 5/16/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > -1: Is there a complete, universal, fixed set of referents valid for any > > utterance and context, such that any given utterance will always pick its > > referents from that set (with suitable restrictions)? > > Yes, though I don't see a problem if there wasn't. This set includes > every permutation of what could be a bear in every place at every time > [...]. This set is practically infinite. > > If this set did not exist, what would the problem be? I don't think there is such thing, but you need it for the complete specification approach to work. Otherwise, in different contexts your starting point for restrictions could be different and so you would end up with a different referent. > > 0: Assuming we have a referent (either picked from the context-free universal > > set hypothesized in -1, or in some other context dependent way), is there > > always a context-free answer to whether a given referent satisfies a > > given predicate? > > Yes. The example that ensued suggests that we need context to help us > determine what the definition of a word is. It is a problem if the > definition is that vague - but it is a problem of the definition, and > we do our best to avoid those sorts of problems in Lojban. Again, for the absolute approach to work, you need every predicate to be non-vague. Unless you allow that for some predicates {lo ro broda} has one referent fixed for all contexts whereas for other predicates it has a referent that does depend on the context. But if this is the case, how do you tell which predicates are absolute and which are not? So you would not use for example something like: ko jgari lo ro cpana be le jubme gi'e bevri cy le zdani Take all that's on the table and bring it to the house. because that would include for example dust particles that are on the table, and you don't really want those to be brought in. You would have to add some other restriction to {lo ro cpana be le jubme} (not sure exactly what). If you have your hand resting on the table with the palm up, and a stone in your palm, would you say the stone is {cpana le jubme}? > > Do we need to define {cpana} in such > > a way that for every single context, the answer to whether a stone on the > > board counts as being "on the table" is always the same, independent of > > the context? > > Yes. Use English if you want to have words that vary > based on context. Or any other language, for that matter. I don't think it is even possible to define words in such a way that you cover all the uses the words will have in all posssible contexts. You propose {lamji se sarji} for "directly supported" as opposed to {cpana} which would also allow mediated support. Would it be correct to use {lamji se sarji} if there was some dust on the table, so that the stones might actually be on the dust rather than directly on the table? Does this need to be clarified in the definition of {lamji}? Is there a maximum allowed empty space between two surfaces (the same for every conceivable context?) so that {lamji} is applicable? Can we say for example that a house is {lamji} to another if there is a separation of one meter between them, or do air molecules interfere with the adjacency? > > 1: Can a speaker actually restrict down to what their referant is? > > (i.e. "make a complete restriction"?) > > Yes, limited by their clarity-of-mind, intellect, and vocabulary. And would you say that there is at least potentially any human speaker with enough clarity of mind, intellect and vocabulary to restrict down to what their referent is in at least a significant number of cases? > > 2a: Is it important to be able to make complete restrictions? > > 2b: Is there something that the current model doesn't handle well that > > is handled by the proposed usage? > > I also offered a "2 of 10 bears in a cage, release all bears in the > cage" example earlier, to which xorxes suggested "Now, taking into > account not just the twenty bears that we've been talking about but > other bears as well, ...", Only for the case when you thought the zoo-keeper might be confused about what you meant. In real life, the presence of a bear in the cage will almost certainly make it a relevant referent of "all bears in the cage" no matter how many hours you had been talking about other bears. > which amounts to something like {__ ro > cribe poi [in the cage, and are in context¬ in context]}, What??? Where did this "in the context & not in the context" come from? Certainly not from me. If they are a referent they are thereby in the context, this is a result of your interpretation, not a restriction used to get to the referent. >which I > think is a sloppy way of doing it in any case, and ridiculous in > contrast to my suggestion. That would indeed be ridiculous. > > 3: Is there room within the current model for the proposed usage? > > Yes. Right now, {ro} for some reason means "all in context". No, it means "all". >I say > that it should mean "all", That's just what it means. 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.