Re: [lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le

["Maxim Katcharov" <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com>]

On 5/9/06, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> --- Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > {__ __ ro cribe} refers to all bears. At the
> > very least all things
> > that were, are, and will be bears, everywhere
> > (maybe even imaginary
> > bears, story-bears, dreamt-bears, or
> > hypothetical
> > I'm-afraid-a-bear-will-eat-me bears) -
> > henceforth "all bears".
>
> Well, no.  {_ _ ro cribe} refers to all the bears
> relevant in the present context, which may be
> anything from the couple specifed to all the
> actual and possible bears.  In a neutral context,
> it usually means all current actual bears.

I understand this and see the utility. But I also see a major problem:
this approach makes it so that Lojban has no way to refer to all bears
specifically (specifically as in the opposite of vague in "in Lojban
you can express things as specifically or vaguely as you'd like").
What if context overwhelmingly favors three bears? For example, three
bears are chasing us -- I say {__ __ ro cribe}, and obviously I mean
all these three bears, right? But what if my intent is to say "all
bears can't climb trees"? (however wrong I may be.) I have no proper
(and consistent) way to say this, because in this case using an inner
{ro} clearly would default it to "all of the bears chasing us here-now
can't climb trees", which is not what I want to say.

The rest of the examples in the email that you just replied to rely
heavily on the assumption that this is how things must work, and if
you disagree, then we'd be talking of different things. If you now
agree with the above paragraph, that {__ __ ro} must include "/all/
ever" (not just those in context), then please re-respond to my
examples with this in mind, because they would not be as I intended
otherwise.

I suggest that:
{__ l_ ro cribe} mean all bears (as I've described it above)
{__ l_ su'o/pa/etc. cribe} mean some bears (in context)/ one bear (in context)
and
{__ l_ cribe} mean "all in context"
which would address your concerns regarding not confusing the listener
with potentially thousands of restrictions.

> > An inner {ro} finalizes/commits your
> > restriction in that it says "no
> > other restrictions need apply". If you say:
> >
> > {ro __ ro cribe}
> >
> > you cannot say that you meant the same
> > identity-group/referant/entity/"set" as
> >
> > {ro __ ro cribe poi bunre}
> >
> > unless you show that
> >
> > {ro __ ro cribe cu bunre}
> >
> > ...good so far?
>
> Let's see: if I say {_ ro cribe poi jersi mi'o} I
> can't add further restrictions and be sure I am
> still referring to the same thing.  But there is
> nothing special about {ro} in this; anytime I add
> new restrictions I am in danger of changing the
> referent.  Is it that, if I claim to be talking

not so when you use su'o or pa as the inner. Surely

{ro __ pa cribe}

can be the same identity-group/referent/entity/"set" as

ro __ pa cribe poi bunre}

without having to prove that

{ro __ ro cribe cu bunre}

correct?

> <<ok, I've lost the specificity that you
> mentioned, or perhaps I never
> had it. See, for that latter one, I'd just say
> (in your terms):
>
> {cisu'o le ro cribe cu bunre} (or maybe exactly
> ci)>>
>
> Which latter one, I've lost track of the lists.
> Certainly {cisu'o le ro cribe} isn't specific
> (isn't it {su'o ci}?)
The latter one that I meant was:
lo: I don't have three bears in mind. But, I want to say that three
bears are brown.

You're right regarding it being {su'oci}.

{cisu'o le ro cribe} certainly isn't specific (though it uses le), and
that's exactly my point.