From lojban-out@lojban.org Sun May 14 20:43:37 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 11182 invoked from network); 15 May 2006 03:43:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.166) by m25.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 May 2006 03:43:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 May 2006 03:43:36 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FfTzZ-0003L4-Gd for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 14 May 2006 20:43:33 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FfTy9-0003KF-93; Sun, 14 May 2006 20:42:06 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 14 May 2006 20:41:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FfTxh-0003K5-RE for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sun, 14 May 2006 20:41:37 -0700 Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com ([64.233.162.195]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FfTxe-0003Jx-8p for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 14 May 2006 20:41:37 -0700 Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id o37so21656nzf for ; Sun, 14 May 2006 20:41:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.81.3 with SMTP id e3mr986051nzb; Sun, 14 May 2006 20:41:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.153.14 with HTTP; Sun, 14 May 2006 20:41:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 21:41:33 -0600 In-Reply-To: <20060514141112.39785.qmail@web81304.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: <20060514141112.39785.qmail@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11542 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: A (rather long) discussion of {all} X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=LuaPpxvU9sVv0SgPmWRpGuqPnnzXyALfG8gC3oZ4Wqlh5hJoSg X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 25959 On 5/14/06, John E Clifford wrote: > > I'm not sure why a referent needs to be gotten by > restriction rather than by buiding up: starting > from a blank we add on qualities until we hve an > adequate represssntation of what is intended. I > don't say that this opposite approach makes any > significant difference in the result, just that > the chopping away idiom is not forced by what > actually occurs. Because this is what occurs. The referent could be anything to start (by the listener's reckoning). Then, we apply the first restriction {__ cribe}. This restricts what our referent could be to bears. Then we add a second restriction {__ cribe poi bajra}. We start with anything, cut it down to bears, and cut it down again to runners. The proposition that we start with nothing does not work: we would start with nothing, and then that means "bears" ... and then we chop bears down to bears that run? And if we don't place even the first restriction, this means that we have nothing in mind? No, this does not work. We add /words/, but as we add the words, we /narrow down/. I meant what I said exactly as I said it: we let the listener know what we're referring to via restriction. > > 1: all the black stones, all the white stones > > -- all black stones that > > are now on this table, [same for white] > > and are not already in the bag on the table. and This is a a different issue, but I do not consider the stones within the bag to be on the table. They may be above the table, but they are not on it. By a stretch they may be on the lower fabric of the bag, but not on the table. The thing that is on the table is the group of (white, black) stones. But again, this is a different issue, unrelated to our current argument: yes, if you want to see it that way, the restriction "not in the bag" needs to be added. > we mean only the game stones, not other stones > that are incidentally on the table. And by There were no other stones on the table mentioned, and so I was operating under the absolutely reasonable assumption that there were none. > "black" we mean the darker grays as opposed to > the distinctly lighter grays. And so on forever. > No. I see that you're trying to argue that you can never restrict absolutely, though you avoid explicitly saying this for some reason. You seem to be expanding the example towards including an entire rainbow of hundreds of stones that are now upon this table. But no, there are simply black stones, and white stones. If you want, we'll call them light stones (>=50% of some scientific color measurement), and dark stones (<50%). You're adjusting the situation to make my use of certain words incorrect, but this still doesn't show that you can't restrict completely. The restriction /was/ complete, in accordance /with the example given/. Your objection may be due to your perception that restrictions build up instead of narrowing down. It may be because you've heard that "the price of infinite precision is infinite verbosity", which does not apply here (though "the price of exact precision is exact verbage" may apply). Regardless, this assumption (that you cannot completely restrict) is wrong. Now, I may be mistaken, so I ask: is it your position that you cannot restrict until you are left with only the intended referents? (That is, that one cannot restrict completely?) > > 2: all the captures -- all the captures related > > to that last game > > That is, actually occurring in the last game and > made in accordance with the rules of that game > ... Adding those restrictions does nothing. It's like saying "that which is an elephant... and (poi) that which is a mammal and that which is an animal and that which is a thing...". No, I've given a complete restriction. > > > 3: all three games -- all three just-previous > > games (or all games today?) > > Well, some unspecified (as noted) three games > with no other games of this sort between any two > of them and ending with the one just finished. > The time span involved is indefinite but -- we > assume -- known to the conversants, who keep > track of the games they play. The example given implies a set of games. I'm trying to determine what actually happened based on an English description of it. If I'm wrong, and they actually mean "all the last three games in this garden", or whatever, then I would have made my complete-restriction reflect that. But I assumed that the referants in the speaker's mind were "all three games of the last set that we played"/"all three just-previous games", so that's how I said it, and based on my (perfectly reasonable) assumption, my restriction was complete. > > > 4: all the stones -- all stones related to that > > last game > > I thought it was the ones on the table. These > need not be all used in the last game but should > be picked up and put away anyhow. You're correct, though it would probably be "all the stones related to the game set (board, bags...)" (here I'm assuming that the speaker doesn't consider that some stones may have rolled into the grass long ago). Here we're deliberating on the best way to make a complete restriction, but this doesn't indicate that a complete restriction cannot be made, which seems to be your position. > > > 5: all the stones that are along the path -- > > all stones that are along > > this path (now?) > > The presentation seems to make this just the > ornamental stones along the path, not incidental > rocks, but, given the rest of the senrtence, this > is probably unimpotant (unless, of course, the > hearer slips on one of the rocks and says "Hey, > you should have warned me about these, too"). > Yep, but if I was a speaker, I wouldn't make this restriction. In fact, I may very well say "take care not to trip on stones along paths" (which wouldn't restrict to ornamental stones or this certain path at all, and would have a better ring to it in Lojban). > > We see that the given antecedents (left) are > > not restricted > > completely, except for perhaps 5a. > > Notice that all the right one also have furhter > relevant restrictions which are nonetheless > correctly omitted as obvious from the > presentation. As are most of what is added in > moving from left to right. These structures may be relevant, but they would be unneccisary. If you mean that they are neccisary to provide a complete restriction, I'd like to know what you think they are. > > However, when reading the complete restrictions > > on the right, we know > > exactly what the referents are, and they're > > exactly the referents > > intended. > > As of course is the case with the left ones in > this situation. No, it is not the case. You'll notice that both the left and the right have been taken out of their context, but not out of their setting. The ones on the left become vague, the ones on the right mean exactly what the speaker intends them to mean. > > context - for example, for 1a, the listener > > would fill in based on > > context "...that are now on this table". > > It is doubtful that the hearer actually does such > additions, he probably just acts on what is given > in the light of his understanding of the > situation. If he does something wrong, his > explanation is not usually in terms of a mistaken > addition to the given, nor is his explanation of > how he knew what to do right. I don't understand what you're saying. The hearer makes these additions. This is how context works to help the listener determine what the referent is. > > English lets the listener know that the > > restriction is complete with > > an emphasis on "all", or with additional > > explanations. > > Examples? I don't see cases of "all" used in > this way as common. And, if the description is > complete, what is the additional explanation? Of the many examples that I've used just in the course of this discussion, the most prevalent one is probably how I'm always forced to either say "all (ever) bears", or "*all* bears". I'd also like to point out that it doesn't have to be common, it has to be important. You can make it as uncommon as you like, by relying only on incomplete restrictions, by relying on context. And I can make it as common as I like, by challenging myself to finding the most terse set of restrictions that would do their job completely. The additional explanation is given when the restriction is incomplete: "all bears (ever, imaginary, past, present, future, hypothetical...)" - in brackets is the additional explanation. > > Adding an explicit number into the inner > > quantifier will let the > > listener know that they should restrict down to > > that number. {L_ pa > > cribe} hints that the number of referents is > > one. > > It doesn't hint. It says the number of things > being referred to is one. "Restricts" seems even > less apt here, the number is where you end up, > not how you get there. To be sure, if you end up To say that that number is where you end up and not how you got there, is like saying that "cribe" is where you end up, not how you got there. > > Now, when we say {L_ cribe} (blank inner) we > > leave the user to > > restrict using context. The listener will pick > > out the most applicable > > referents. > > Ahah! Here is where you are going to try to make > some sort of move. By stressing that {lo cribe} > is a case where the hearer picks things out using > context, you are setting up some other case -- > presumably {lo ro cribe}, given all the talk > about "all" -- as a case where the hearer picks > thigs out without context. I don't see this -- > if it is the way you want to go. It certainly is > not how Lojban works now and it does not seem to > be a useful way to change (even if it can be made > clear). What certainly isn't how Lojban works now? My statement just above? > > What's the difference between {L_ cribe} and > > {L_ ro cribe}? There > > isn't any practical difference. > > As noted, this is controversial. To be sure, CLL > says that {lo cribe} is just the implicit form of > the explicit {su'o lo ro cribe}, but I don't The CLL also implies that an inner {ro} is an assertion regarding how many bears exist. My position wants nothing to do with that. > > In the former, > > it is said "we don't > > say anything about the number", in the latter > > "all those that are > > relevant". These are two perspectives on (or > > parts of) the same > > underlying principle: "Listener, we're not > > giving you a > > number-restriction, so just use context to > > guess what the referent > > is". > > "Guess" seems a little harsh; there are good, > albeit fallible, argument patterns to get to the > answer. It's not meant to be harsh, it's meant to be accurate. I'm not at all arguing that we should completely restrict every single referent - not at all. In fact, I think that it is very important for this ability to not have to restrict fully to exist. However, the ability to restrict completely is more important, though much less practical. > > Lojban seems to have one way to signal that the > > restrictions are > > complete: with additional explanations. > > I am not sure what you mean here: what would > count as ana dditional explanation added to a > complete set of restrictions? This seems > paradoxical. I mean what xorxes was getting at: "Now, taking into account not just the twenty bears that we've been talking about but other bears as well, ...". But I don't really know. All I know is that Lojban doesn't have a solid way to do what I describe - to make an antecedent that doesn't rely on context. > > I find this more than strange. {ro}, being > > synonymous with a blank > > inner quantifier is readily available (and > > perhaps may have been > > intended) to serve as the marker that the > > restriction is complete and > > that the listener shouldn't add any other > > restrictions using context. > > This seems to me perverse. Internal {ro} is > about the number of things in the referent, not > about the completeness of the referring It /is/ about the number of things in the referent. When I say "all bears", I damn well mean all bears - "all such that are bears". Do I mean "all relevant things such that are bears"? No. I mean "all such that are bears". This extra "relevant things" that has been tacked on seems to /me/ perverse. If we have the clear and simple "all such that are bears", then the listener doesn't have to worry that the restriction is incomplete, that the speaker has ommited anything. I understand how your inner ro, inner su'o, and blank inner work. Since you do not see how my inner ro meaning *all* corresponds to it being an indicator that a restriction is complete, I conclude that you don't understand my position. I urge you to try to construct some sentances using my proposed definitions, to get some idea of how they're used. I've done the very same using your definitions. 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.