From lojban-out@lojban.org Fri May 12 20:54:58 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 69032 invoked from network); 13 May 2006 03:54:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.67.33) by m31.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 May 2006 03:54:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 May 2006 03:54:56 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FelDT-00047c-EW for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 12 May 2006 20:54:55 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FelAq-00046H-Ks; Fri, 12 May 2006 20:52:14 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 12 May 2006 20:52:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FelAN-00045d-KN for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 12 May 2006 20:51:43 -0700 Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com ([64.233.162.198]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FelAJ-00045U-Cb for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 12 May 2006 20:51:43 -0700 Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id n29so537448nzf for ; Fri, 12 May 2006 20:51:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.250.45 with SMTP id x45mr665123nzh; Fri, 12 May 2006 20:51:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.153.14 with HTTP; Fri, 12 May 2006 20:51:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 21:51:37 -0600 In-Reply-To: <20060513022205.38224.qmail@web81313.mail.mud.yahoo.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: <20060513022205.38224.qmail@web81313.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11533 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: Usage of lo and le X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=JHcvCGY0-oAQeSpW0WPN6L2_aVdpC9ERBMo7aNU4ocoCkdv9qg X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 25950 On 5/12/06, John E Clifford wrote: > --- Maxim Katcharov > wrote: > > > On 5/12/06, John E Clifford > > wrote: > > > --- Maxim Katcharov > > > > > wrote: > > > > I hold this position, and you're arguing > > against it and for only > > Position 2. I'm arguing for including both this > > position /and/ > > Position 2. > > Goodness, why? I took you to be arguing that > this position was incompatible with something > every one does hold, but that we held to this one > too. Now it turns out that you are the one > holding incompatible positions -- by your own > argument. This is all very strange. They aren't incompatible. They can exist mutually, just not at the same time, within the same word. I had thought that you implemented both with {ro}, it turns out that you implement position 2 with {ro}, and position 1 either by saying something nonsensical within the context (which doesn't guarantee success), or by being needlessly verbose ("poi ... and (such that are in our context and such that are not in our context)"). > Since I am now very worried about what you mean, > I am leery of agreeing with you about anything. > But, yees, following the flow of discourse is a > large part of the way a speaker understands the > less than explicit parts of the conversation. > > > I'm proposing that we give the speaker the > > option to be definitely > > precise, meaning that the listener doesn't have > > to rely on context, > > and can take the words of the speaker exactly > > as they are. > > That is, we force the speaker to go against the > linguistic habits of the last at least ten > thousand years and not leave out anything that > could possibly be needed to fix those previously This is like saying that by introducing predicate relationships with up to 5 (!) arguments, we're going against the grain of the last 10000 years of linguistic habit. I just want to be able to be explicit about what referent I mean. > implicit parts of the conversation. I am not > surte that is possible in general, but it can be > done in some particular (and I think rather > peculiar) cases. And, if it could be done, it Of course it's possible, I've done it countless times in the course of this discussion: "the pen on this desk", "all bears (ever)", "all (ALL) bears in that cage" etc. etc. > > > > Sure it does. If the listener properly > > understands {L_ cribe} to mean > > an unspecified bunch of bears, maybe one, > > maybe[...], then he has > > correctly picked out all the relevant bears. > > No, not at all. When that is the way things go, > what {lo cribe} is about (it does not pick out > anything -- it is not {le} even then) is some > relevant bears, not necessarily all of them -- So {lo cribe} is {lo su'o cribe} ("some bears") then? I doubt that this is what you mean. > and no specified ones at that. I don't think that > going off to talk about a few of the relevant > bears makes the rest irrelevant, theyare just not > the ones were are talking about at the moment. They're clearly irrelevant to the current talk. And like I've said before, the mass of all things that have been talked about is useless as a mass. Either some parts of it are relevant to the current sentance, or they aren't. > > "Nonsensical" is a little strong. It does > violate a convention to restate the obvious, as > this would do if I meant to refer to the > currently relevant bears. since I am assuming > that no conventions are being violated (always > the proper assumption until the evidence > overwhelms you) it must not be stating the > obvious and so saying something new. To call > this nonsensical is to miss the role that it > plays constantly in conversation; this is a > standard way of changing domains (and context). I understand the role it plays in conversation. It's a very important role, but it's still implemented by having the speaker say something that is nonsensical. > > < moving into some new domain. This is a hack.>> > > For what? It is a standard move and has been for > countless ages past. What is the real move we > keep not using and how did weveryone miss it > until you came along? I assume that you're just ribbing me, but I feel that I should mention that it's a fallacy to assume that an argument is wrong because the arguer has no known clout within the field. Consider my method of "moving between contexts" (I wouldn't call it that - I'd say that you're setting all context aside and defining your referent yourself, instead of letting context do it): (my inner {ro} refers to all, not just to relevant-all) {__ ro cribe poi nenri [this zoo]} {__ ro cribe poi nenri [this forest]} {__ ro cribe} {__ ro cribe poi mi'o ponse} {__ ro cribe poi ...} > take care of himself.) What did you do if not > spell out exactly (as much as need be) where you > wanted to go. Maybe your case did not involve > repeating anything obvious, but the move is still > essntially the same. and thus, I suppose, It's not the same. Saying something that is nonsensical within the context sets the context to some undefined sensible context, this method just says "the referent is this. Forget about context, you need not rely on it to know what I'm talking about". > another hack. On the other hand, if you did not These could be considered a hack if they did something not-quite-proper and still got the job done in some way. But they don't. > spell out where to go, how does your move get you > there? > > <<> > > > > Yep. These factors are used to help the > > > listener pick out which things > > > are being spoken of. Another (or at least > > > another use of) context is > > > using it to place things relative to it: if > we > > > didn't have this > > > context, we wouldn't know what "now", or > > > "before", or "tomorrow", or > > > "here" meant, because they're all relative to > > > the current context. The > > > latter is necessary just about always, but > the > > > former is only > > > necessary when you aren't being precise > enough > > > (when you aren't > > > restricting enough). > > > > Actually, in the theory, most of these examples > > are relative not to the whole context but only > to > > the occasion of utterance, a relatively > > controllable component of the context. > > > > Sure. My point is that they're part of the > setting-context, and not > the domain-context.>> > > What exactly (Hell, approximately) is the > distinction here. I just haven't seen thise > terms before, so far as I can remember. The setting context lets you put things relative to it. Right now, when I say {mi}, you know that I'm talking about myself, or if I say {nau}, you know that I'm talking about the time/place of this writing. That's the setting-context. The domain-context is (roughly), if we've been talking about 20 bears, those 20 bears. > > If your normal means fail, you lack the facility > for this sort of > precision. I try to show this in my caged bears > example.>> > > But of course you failed to show it, precisely Er, yes, but it's also possible that you failed to understand it or consider it properly. But as far as I'm concerned, since it seems that we're both not crazy, and are rational, each of us has simply (equally) not yet done a good enough job of explaining and/or of understanding. Pointing this out regarding any particular person usually incites something that isn't at all an argument. > because you could set up the example. All that > is needed now is the (possibly extraordinary -- > but I don't really think so ) step of copying out > what you did in setting up the example to > describe the case. Pop! I don't understand what you're saying. I gave you an example where both of these positions could be used, and are used, in what I would consider to be common conversation. If they're both used, then both should be addressed in some sensible way by Lojban, if possible (and it is). 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.