[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

On 5/12/06, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

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

> On 5/12/06, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > --- Maxim Katcharov
> <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> I hold this position, and you're arguing
> against it and for only
> Position 2. I'm arguing for including both this
> position /and/
> Position 2.

Goodness, why?  I took you to be arguing that
this position was incompatible with something
every one does hold, but that we held to this one
too.  Now it turns out that you are the one
holding incompatible positions -- by your own
argument.  This is all very strange.


They aren't incompatible. They can exist mutually, just not at the
same time, within the same word. I had thought that you implemented
both with {ro}, it turns out that you implement position 2 with {ro},
and position 1 either by saying something nonsensical within the
context (which doesn't guarantee success), or by being needlessly
verbose ("poi ... and (such that are in our context and such that are
not in our context)").


Since I am now very worried about what you mean,
I am leery of agreeing with you about anything.
But, yees, following the flow of discourse is a
large part of the way a speaker understands the
less than explicit parts of the conversation.

> I'm proposing that we give the speaker the
> option to be definitely
> precise, meaning that the listener doesn't have
> to rely on context,
> and can take the words of the speaker exactly
> as they are.

That is, we force the speaker to go against the
linguistic habits of the last at least ten
thousand years and not leave out anything that
could possibly be needed to fix those previously


This is like saying that by introducing predicate relationships with
up to 5 (!) arguments, we're going against the grain of the last 10000
years of linguistic habit. I just want to be able to be explicit about
what referent I mean.


implicit parts of the conversation.  I am not
surte that is possible in general, but it can be
done in some particular (and I think rather
peculiar) cases.  And, if it could be done, it


Of course it's possible, I've done it countless times in the course of
this discussion: "the pen on this desk", "all bears (ever)", "all
(ALL) bears in that cage" etc. etc.


>
> Sure it does. If the listener properly
> understands {L_ cribe} to mean
> an unspecified bunch of bears, maybe one,
> maybe[...], then he has
> correctly picked out all the relevant bears.

No, not at all.  When that is the way things go,
what {lo cribe} is about (it does not pick out
anything -- it is not {le} even then) is some
relevant bears, not necessarily all of them --


So {lo cribe} is {lo su'o cribe} ("some bears") then? I doubt that
this is what you mean.


and no specified ones at that. I don't think that
going off to talk about a few of the relevant
bears makes the rest irrelevant, theyare just not
the ones were are talking about at the moment.


They're clearly irrelevant to the current talk. And like I've said
before, the mass of all things that have been talked about is useless
as a mass. Either some parts of it are relevant to the current
sentance, or they aren't.



"Nonsensical" is a little strong.  It does
violate a convention to restate the obvious, as
this would do if I meant to refer to the
currently relevant bears.  since I am assuming
that no conventions are being violated (always
the proper assumption until the evidence
overwhelms you) it must not be stating the
obvious and so saying something new.  To call
this nonsensical is to miss the role that it
plays constantly in conversation; this is a
standard way of changing domains (and context).


I understand the role it plays in conversation. It's a very important
role, but it's still implemented by having the speaker say something
that is nonsensical.



<<in order to indicate that you're
moving into some new domain. This is a hack.>>

For what?  It is a standard move and has been for
countless ages past.  What is the real move we
keep not using and how did weveryone miss it
until you came along?


I assume that you're just ribbing me, but I feel that I should mention
that it's a fallacy to assume that an argument is wrong because the
arguer has no known clout within the field.

Consider my method of "moving between contexts" (I wouldn't call it
that - I'd say that you're setting all context aside and defining your
referent yourself, instead of letting context do it):

(my inner {ro} refers to all, not just to relevant-all)

{__ ro cribe poi nenri [this zoo]}
{__ ro cribe poi nenri [this forest]}
{__ ro cribe}
{__ ro cribe poi mi'o ponse}
{__ ro cribe poi ...}


take care of himself.) What did you do if not
spell out exactly (as much as need be) where you
wanted to go.  Maybe your case did not involve
repeating anything obvious, but the move is still
essntially the same.  and thus, I suppose,


It's not the same. Saying something that is nonsensical within the
context sets the context to some undefined sensible context, this
method just says "the referent is this. Forget about context, you need
not rely on it to know what I'm talking about".


another hack.  On the other hand, if you did not


These could be considered a hack if they did something
not-quite-proper and still got the job done in some way. But they
don't.


spell out where to go, how does your move get you
there?

<<> >
> > Yep. These factors are used to help the
> > listener pick out which things
> > are being spoken of. Another (or at least
> > another use of) context is
> > using it to place things relative to it: if
we
> > didn't have this
> > context, we wouldn't know what "now", or
> > "before", or "tomorrow", or
> > "here" meant, because they're all relative to
> > the current context. The
> > latter is necessary just about always, but
the
> > former is only
> > necessary when you aren't being precise
enough
> > (when you aren't
> > restricting enough).
>
> Actually, in the theory, most of these examples
> are relative not to the whole context but only
to
> the occasion of utterance, a relatively
> controllable component of the context.
>

Sure. My point is that they're part of the
setting-context, and not
the domain-context.>>

What exactly (Hell, approximately) is the
distinction here.  I just haven't seen thise
terms before, so far as I can remember.


The setting context lets you put things relative to it. Right now,
when I say {mi}, you know that I'm talking about myself, or if I say
{nau}, you know that I'm talking about the time/place of this writing.
That's the setting-context. The domain-context is (roughly), if we've
been talking about 20 bears, those 20 bears.



If your normal means fail, you lack the facility
for this sort of
precision. I try to show this in my caged bears
example.>>

But of course you failed to show it, precisely


Er, yes, but it's also possible that you failed to understand it or
consider it properly. But as far as I'm concerned, since it seems that
we're both not crazy, and are rational, each of us has simply
(equally) not yet done a good enough job of explaining and/or of
understanding. Pointing this out regarding any particular person
usually incites something that isn't at all an argument.


because you could set up the example.  All that
is needed now is the (possibly extraordinary --
but I don't really think so ) step of copying out
what you did in setting up the example to
describe the case.  Pop!


I don't understand what you're saying. I gave you an example where
both of these positions could be used, and are used, in what I would
consider to be common conversation. If they're both used, then both
should be addressed in some sensible way by Lojban, if possible (and
it is).