On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Luke Bergen
<lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
And if {roda} CAN be limited based on context, could one ever be certain that they were getting the message across that "yes, in this case I really am talking about EVERYTHING (in the lojbanic sense, not just material things)"?
It seems to me that we are assuming that
"the lojbanic sense" should be the same as "the mathematical logic sense"
while I'm suggesting that we should evaluate the lojbanic constructs
based on their use in human communication.
it does seem like if we start letting vagueness get into {roda} it would be a hard concept to get back. If {roda} were context dependent, how would one express the {roda} that gejyspa is advocating for?
The easiest, quick&dirty solution that come to my mind is to mandate that an unboud {di} is NOT context dependent while {da} and {de} might be context dependent. The "EVERYTHING" in logic sense $\forall x : isapple(x)$ would be {rodi plise}. I don't particularly like it, but it seems rather harmless to me.
I mean that the case when "all" is bound from the context is much more common than the case where it means "EVERYTHING".