From lojban-out@lojban.org Fri Jun 02 18:42:47 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 71616 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2006 01:42:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.67.34) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Jun 2006 01:42:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Jun 2006 01:42:28 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FmL9m-0008TI-KU for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 02 Jun 2006 18:42:26 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FmL8f-0008SC-1p; Fri, 02 Jun 2006 18:41:18 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 02 Jun 2006 18:41:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FmL8D-0008Rn-Fv for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 02 Jun 2006 18:40:49 -0700 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.171]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FmL8A-0008Rf-NC for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 02 Jun 2006 18:40:49 -0700 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id j40so679752ugd for ; Fri, 02 Jun 2006 18:40:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.66.222.9 with SMTP id u9mr1309660ugg; Fri, 02 Jun 2006 18:40:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.66.255.6 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Jun 2006 18:40:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 19:40:45 -0600 In-Reply-To: <20060602203837.3044.qmail@web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060602203837.3044.qmail@web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-archive-position: 11711 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: -1.6 (-) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 2:3:4:0 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=xH1faGUZPNMJuDjXpqpAUBXXdjp44gc2YsX3NOx97LTEPLyGjw X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 26131 Welcome back, I hope your rest was enjoyable. On 6/2/06, John E Clifford wrote: > > Well, it is nice to find that I am not the only > person who can get involved in interminable > discussions with xorxes. But I now find myself > sympathizing with those who do not participate, > for reading the sixty-odd salvoes fired while I > was away is very frustrating (yet I can't bring > myself to just skip them). Part of the > frustration is in seeing people arguing past one > another, abusing language (both English and > Lojban), and so on – and not being able to jump > in and set them straight. Since I generally > agree with xorxes in this discussion (mirabile > dictu), I tend to see the flaws in Maxim's > position most clearly, but I am sure the other > participant is guilty as well. Herewith some > comments as I have been catching up (not that I > am done yet, so excuse me if some things I say > are dealt with more recrntly than where I read > the problems). > > The shuffling around about "context," which is > often used, it seems to me, as a way not to deal > with issues by taking the term in one sense when > it clearly was meant (to the Gricean > collaborative interlocutor) in another, is > unfortunate. The split between context and > setting does not seem to illuminate much and also > seems to leave out important factors (background > knowledge, for example, which is neither in the > words nor the physical environment). Yes, to > humor Maxim, it would be strategic to try, when > relevant, to use "setting," but, on the other > hand, there is the general obligation to > understand what your fellow discussant is saying > and respond to that, even if the wording is not > up to your standard. The difference between context and setting is definite. Setting handles "this", "me", and "now". Setting provides reference points. Context handles "all the bears". All of which bears? Probably the bears that we were talking about just now, and not those we were talking about an hour ago. Context includes background knowledge, common sense, memory of the discussion, and anything else which helps one determine what exactly is meant by "all the bears". Note the ambiguity of the word "context": http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/context http://www.answers.com/context This distinction must be recognized. Yes, I understand what is said even when a term is used contrary to the definitions outlined at the start of this thread (and then repeated by myself nearly every time a misuse occurred), but it serves my purpose to have this distinction (and one exists), and it serves your purpose to treat them as one (which they are not). Perhaps I've highlighted the distinction even when it was unimportant, but I can't recall this. If you were to point me to an example, you may find that while you think it doesn't bear mention, I think that it is at the heart of the misunderstanding. > > "Ambiguous" does not mean "capable of more than > one interpretation;" it means "having more than > one meaning," which is similar in most cases, but > not the same. It, like vaguenss, is situational: > an expression may be ambiguous or vague in one > situation and not in another, even though the > "ambiguous" one may be capable of several > interpretations in both (the capability just not > being called upon in one). Vagueness is just not > being precise enough – for whatever the prupose > at hand is. When you are planning what to do > against a threat, saying the threat is an animal > may be vague, but it is not ambiguous between > dogs and elephants, even if those are the > possible animals involved, since "animal" doesn't > mean "dog" nor "elephant" (nor is it capable of > these interpretations). (The dictionary citations > start out talking about interpretations but have > to get down to meanings almost immediately, since > "interpretation" gets them off into poetry, which > is not strictly ambiguous.) Ambiguity is about > meaning, not reference. I think I understand the distinction, and that it is as you see it. You'll note that "animal" can be vague between dog and cat. However, between "together the students" and "the students (individually)", I see no thing that can be vague, no "superclass" - only ambiguity. When I say "that dog stole my shoes", I am not vague, I am ambiguous: do I mean an animal, or a crude/contemptible person? Likewise, when I say "the students surrounded the pole", I am not vague, I am ambiguous: do I mean that the group of students surrounded it, or that each one is, say, climbing the pole? > > In a similar way, {lo broda} is not ambiguous > between brodas predicated of collectively and > brodas predicated of distributively; it just > refers to the brodas. How they are predicated of > depends upon what the predicate is and how it is > related to them. (I agree with Maxim that the > place for the information about how a bunch of > things is predicated of does not belong in the > gadri but in some attachment ot the sumti or the > predicate or somewhere in between (like > "together" and "individually" in English). As > far as I can tell, xorxes does not disagree. But > the fact is that there is no way to do this in > Lojban (yet) and so we must hobble on with what > we have, despite the gaps and problems it leaves. It is fine to hobble on, but not acknowledging that the foot is broken leaves me wondering if there is something that I'm not seeing, and makes me want to know what it is. I provided both a way to say things "properly" (i.e. without switching the referent halfway through), and xorxes corrected it - point being that it exists, though it involves 2-3 more syllables than you use now to say "the students surrounded the building and wore hats". I've also provided several suggestions as to alternate solutions that involve the introduction of a new word, or the redefinition of an unused word. > If it is important to note that the predication > is collective and that is not obvious from > context, then use {loi}, otherwise {lo} is > sufficient. To be sure, the rpredication will, > in fact, be one way or the other, but we don't > have to say so – anymore than we have to say that > the dog biting us is black if want someone to get > it off us. finding a good way to deal correctly > with predication type seems to me an issue worth > discussing, as the present one does not.) > > {lo broda} refers to brodas (I would say "a bunch > of brodas" but xorxes gets all metaphysical about > that expression, even though it does not force > the entity interpretation in English and the > logic of both interpretations is the same). An Yes, I use the word "set" in the way that you use "bunch". > internal quantifier says how many brodas are > involved (I know that CLL says that it says how > many brodas there are, but CLL was out of datr > several years before it got published and we are > just not correcting it.) In {lo ro broda} that > number is everything that counts as a broda. > This does not mean that {lo ro broda} means "all > the relevant brodas" (or some such), since that > suggests that there are irrelevant brodas that > aren't coverd. But there aren't. To be sure, we Could {lo ro cribe} be used to refer to bears in a zoo ({poi nenri...})? Now, if there were a bear out in a forest somewhere, I would consider that to be an irrelevant bear. Or does that forest-dwelling bear not "count" as a real bear? > can bring in – create within the world of the > conversation, if you will – more brodas, but they > aren't there until we do. I take it that one of > Maxim's problem is how to inform the partners in > this conversation that we have created these new > objects of discussion. His suggestion for one > extreme case: using {lo ro broda} to bring in all > the brodas that are or might be or …, does not > work, since, as he admits, 1) there does not > really seem to be such a supply of brodas to > bring in and Why does there need to be a supply? And what is this supply? You mean that when I've said things like "all bears, ever, now, future, past, hypothetical...", you didn't comprehend which bears I "brought in"? I find this hard to believe. > 2) even if there were, it is > (almost?) never what we want to bring in. As I've said before, you wouldn't just say {lo ro cribe}, you would instead say {lo ro cribe poi nau nenri lovi tanxe}, which wouldn't muck around with *any* vagueness. It would be 100% clear and independent of context what you meant. > The > question is legitimate, but the answer seems to > be that we do it in Lojban as we do in English > (etc.) : we say something that we thinmk will > trigger the understanding of the others. If it > does not, we say something else, usually more > precise. And we keep at it until we get the > result we want (or say "To Hell with it!"). > Mayhap a logical language ought to have a better > device, no better device has yet emerged, unless > it is to start off using the expression we would > have used that achieved the desired result. But > that is hard to predict, so we work through the > possibilities in order, since saying more than is > needed is a uncooperative as saying too little > and stopping. You still have the option to say what you'd like as vaguely as you'd like. It's just that now, for no added cost, you can say "to hell with it! Here's exactly what I mean:". > > There is a kind of object-meta muddle going on > here, the above bit about the meaning of {lo ro > broda} (and, I suppose, even of {lo broda}, > though less so) being an example. What {lo ro > broda} means is "all brodas." Within the > conversation that is all the brodas within the > conversation, but we can only say it this way No, it's not "all brodas within the conversation". If we were talking about forest bears 10 minutes ago, and this naturally moved into the subject of your trip to the zoo, and I asked your{[did you see all the bears at the zoo?]}, then I wouldn't be referring to all cribe within the conversation: I would be referring to a *contextually sensible* set of cribe. So not "all brodas", and not "all brodas within the conversation". Your{ro} means "all contextually sensible brodas". Which, I argue, is much better illustrated by {ro lo broda}. > from outside the conversation, where (in a larger > conversation, as it were) we recognize that there > are brodas that are not covered -- one capable > of being brought into the conversation, perhaps. > But this does not imply that {lo ro broda} means > "all the brodas in the conversation." Indeed, > it cannot, since "in the conversation" is > meaningless within the conversation, where > meaning is first determined. That is, you cannot > refer to the object language in the object > language (in any transparent way, anyhow) and so > cannot bring metalinguistic comments down into > the determination of meaning within that > language. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. > > Sets, masses and the like. I agree with xorxes > that C-sets have no role to play in Lojban > outside of discussions of set theory (something > that has yet to occur) and that {lo'i} and the > like either have no role to play correlative with > their length or have some use not yet established > (I would suggest corporate entities, if {loi} > can't be shifted over to them once the > predication issue gets dealt with). The same > seems to me to apply to "mass," although in this > case because the word may mean any of several > things and is actually ambiguous in most uses in > the word lists and CLL. For most of the uses of > set-language and mass-language, reference to (a > bunch of) brodas is sufficient, if the > corresponding logic is understood and applied. > Indeed, reading both "set" and "mass" in this way > is about the only one that makes sense of many of > the things said. The use of "set" was a response > to the need to deal with plurality when there was > no better means available (or at least known) in > logic. The use of "mass" is too muddled to > account for but most of the apparent factors have > been pulled out in the notion of collective > predication once the fuller logic became > available (known). > > Outer quantifiers. I am conflicted on this. CLL > makes it clear that, just as the primary referent > of {lo broda} is all brodas, in context {lo > broda} refers to some (not necessarily all) of > those brodas. I now think that {lo broda} > primarily some brodas (no necessarily all) and > that {lo robroda} in context refers to all of > them (cf. {le broda} in CLL). I do not think, > however, that that means that {lo broda} has an > implicit quantifier -- either internal {su'o} or > external {ro}, though I have less trouble with > the internal one. The external quantifier, if > necessarily present, would force me to take {lo > broda} as being distributively predicated (in > fact, distributivity is defined by means of the > universal quantifier) and I want {lo broda} just > to refer to the brodas involved, regardless of > how various things are predicated of them. It > seems to me that any other external quantifer > would have the same effect, forcing > distributivity, whereas the internal quantifier > does not: it just counts the brodas referred to. > So, {ro lo broda} is very different from {lo ro > broda}: the first is distributive and need not > refer to all brodas, the second is not yet > committed on mode of predication andd does refer > to all brodas. What if I wanted to be not yet committed, and did not want to refer to "all" brodas, to say something about them? Perhaps I wanted to say that it is true that 5 of 7 students surrounded the pole, etc.? > > The argument about whether there is a thing over > and above the students when the students surround > the building is the worst kind of vacuous > metaphysics against which the Logical Positivist > were ever warning us. The point is: it doesn't > matter which way you say it or even which way you > think it, the logic is exactly the same (though > what picture you have in your head when you see > certain expressions may be different, but > language is not about the pictures in your head > -- the fact that you see it as a new entity > doesn't mean there is a new entity there andy > more than the fact you don't see one means that > it isn't there). In natural languages we Right. This is what I argue. In "the 26 students surround the building" how many things are such that they *actually* surround the building? Note the difference between "playing a role in surrounding" and "*actually* surrounding". There is only one thing. There are not 26 that fit that description. Just because you or xorxes do not see in your mind this definite picture of a *crowd* surrounding a building does not mean that one entity (a crowd) does not surround it. Another approach is comparing this to seeing 10 trees and not a grove, which is ok, but begins to become nonsensical when the numbers are increased to something that would constitute a forest. There is one entity, just because the numbers are few and manageable doesn't mean that this entity doesn't exist. > regularly switch back and forth between the two > locutions: "several students"/ "a group of > students," without any significant change in > meaning. If you ask a ordinary person whether "a > group of three students walked down the street" > meant that four things (the students and their > group) walked down the street, he would quite > rightly think you were a bit more than tetched. As would I. If I saw the group walk, I wouldn't think that they walked individually, and vice-versa. I would answer "a group walked down the street", or "three students walked down the street", depending on how I saw it, but definitely not both at the same time. In this example, you would *not* see those things as a mass, and so you don't even have the potential to do this "converting between mass and bunch/set/individuals". The issue is that "a group of three students" translates much more readily to {lo ci ve'i tadni} than to {lu'o lo ci tadni}. > To be sure, the two locutions "three students" > and "a group of three students" have different > grammars (one is plural, the other singular, for > example) but they do not have different logics > (as McKay eventually admits, after having talked > entity language: "plurality" and the like, for > many chapters). > > It has dawned on me slowly that the problem I am > having with Maxim is that he is trying to teach > Grandma to suck eggs, a proverbial form of > chutzpah. As far as I can tell, he has been > working with Lojban for only a couple of months; > xorxes has been producing paradigm Lojan text for > a decade or so. So Maxim telling xorxes that > xorxes doesn't understand what the Lojban says or > is saying something improper in Lojban > immediately strikes one as simple arrogance. It would be arrogance if came into English and insisted that blue mean red and red mean blue. Telling xorxes that his reasoning for using lojbanic structures in one way, or in ways that are inconsistent, or needlessly redundant (by my understanding), and then attempting to illustrate that is not at all arrogance. If something does not seem right to you, even if it is extremely orthodox, it is your obligation to state that you think that it isn't right. If you are proven wrong, then that is even better than being proven right, because it means that you've learned something. If I thought I didn't yet understand your position, I would phrase my comments as such. But now that I think I understand it, and I disagree, I choose to say "this is incorrect" instead of "I'm confused", because that's how I see it. So in response to "this is arrogance, you shouldn't be telling someone who's worked with the language for a decade that something that he's doing is incorrect" - I don't care. I'm perfectly content with being seen as arrogant, or with being eventually incorrect, so long as interesting discussion takes place. > That does not, of course, mean that it is wrong, > but it does mean that Maxim has to give really > good arguments for his case. Of course, he was > under that obligation from the beginning, since > he is the one proposing changes. So far as I can > see, his arguments have not met the challenge. Keep in mind that it is particularly hard to argue against established thought. > The one that brought this home to me seems > particularly bad. Briefly it seems to be > collective predication creates an entity that > does the work of the members together and that > entity cannot be referred to by {lo broda}, since > that is needed to refer to the distributive > situation, and so a sentence which uses {lo > broda}as subject of both a distributive and a > collective predicate is improper. But, of > course, neither of the first two clauses has been > established (and, indeed, it looks almost as if > the claimed impropriety of the sentence were > taken as evidence for them) and thre conclusion > holds only if the first two are established (but > not even then necessarily). In "the 26 students surround the building", there are not many true surrounders: the students take part in the surroundment, but they are not actually surrounders. However, surroundment takes place. What is the surrounder? It doesn't matter what it is, so long as it /is/ - but in this case it can probably be called a "crowd". A crowd of students is a different thing than a bunch/set of students. A crowd can, and does surround a building, a "bunch/set" (as defined by you and by me) cannot, because that means that each one surrounds. "The students wore hats and together surrounded the building" is the proper way to say "the students wore hats and surrounded the building". It is wrong to change a referent in the midst of a sentence, and even English doesn't do that. It simply omits an implicit word which would serve to create a new referent. While I could tolerate (but heartily disagree with) a rule that allows "the students" to refer to varyingly a mass and a bunch/set, even in the same sentence, it is simply not so that the same thing that surrounds the building is the same things that wear hats - though, of course, the same things that partake in the surroundment of the building are the same things that wear hats. The plural predication that is suggested is as incorrect as saying that "Alice is not a shipmate" even though Alice and Bryce are shipmates together - what I mean to say here is that this plural quantification is explained by McKay along with unstable examples such as this, which makes it easier to allow that it might be incorrect. > To be sure, CLL, > written in antiquity, logically speaking, does > tend not to be clear about where the > distributive/collective distinction lies, placing > it in the entities, as we might now say, rather > than in the predicates and so Maxim is to that > extent justified in speaking of these entities as > significantly different. But he seems not to > have absorbed the lesson that this difference is > merely a manner of speaking, not a reality that > forces some linguistic feature. No, I've "absorbed" that reality, and I've given it quite reasonable consideration. I just disagree with it. It is wrong to imply that I don't understand it. > Indeed, even if > he does hold that the students form a new entity, > he has not shown that that new entity cannot be > predicated of in two different ways and thus > allow one reference to it to serve as subject to > two predications of different mode I don't understand what you mean here. Yes, you can predicate it as a crowd of prenu, or a crowd of tadni. However, "the students each" and "together the students" (in "___ surround(s) the building") are simply different referents, and not interchangeable. > (the fact that > set theory doesn't allow these other predications > directly does not mean they don't occur and > deserve representation: indeed, we could do the > whole of the {lo} discussion in terms of > non-empty C-sets as well as plural logic or > L-sets). The argument actually goes tother way > round: since the sentence with {lo broda} as > subject to both predications is proper (ones of If I understand you correctly, my response is that they are not proper. > this sort are in the accepted lojban corpus), it I understand that and how some people have used it. My argument is that this use is improper. > follows that {lo broda} of itself does not > indicate mode of predication. > 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.