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

[John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>]

--- Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.

First of all, what is the relevant context is
largely the speaker's choice, though he has an
obligation to bring the hearer onto his page if
he goes to far from the "obvious" context.  In
the second place, the limitiations of context
vary with the locution.  I think that the chasing
bears become pretty decisive for {le cribe}; {lo
criber is less clear and more adaptable (add {pi
zasti} for example).  {lo cribe romei} is even
more like to be general -- out of immediate
context, and  {ro da poi cribre} even more so. 
So there are several ways to jump from talk about
those chasing bears to bears in general, all
existing bears, or even all possible bears
(indeed all impossible ones as well).  (Though I
do have to admire the sang froid of someone being
chased by a honey-eater and discussing the
general characteristics of such beasts.)
For your particular case, {lo ro cribe naku cpare
lo tricu} or some such, the first thinbg I'd note
is that this is not a very natural way of sying
this.  More immediate would be {no cribe cu cpare
lo tricu}, in which case the need for {ro}
disappears and a whole new set of presuppositions
comes into play.


> 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 don't agree, obviously. I am not convinced by
your argument for the resaons noted.
 
> 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.

I am not concerned with confusing the listener. 
the speaker has an obligation to keep the
listener in the same context, but this is usually
rather easy to do, as is shifting contexts. 
There may be thousands of restrictions
potentially, but in real cases there are rarely
as many as four options (indeed more than two).
Your patterns can do what you suggest, of course,
but they don't have to and making them do this at
this late date would mess with way too much
existing text, especially since there is no need
for the specialization.

> > > 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?

No.  I have to prove that the one bear involved
is brown, but that is the "all" of the case. {ro}
just doesn't say how many is all.
 
> > <<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.
No, it is not specific because of the {su'oci}. 
However, the three, which might be any three, are
any three *of the specific bunch defined by {le
ro cribe}.*  So call it semispecific: it is more
restricted than {suoci lo ro cribe} but not as
much as {le ro cribe}.  I am not sure I get the
point here, but the in-mind restriction cpmes in
at the proper level -- the {le}, not the {su'oci}.