Re: Uses of {le} and {lo}

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

Maxim Katcharv:
<<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)").>>

Well, since I have been mistakenly attributing
things to you, I suppose it is only fair for you
to mistakenly attribute things to me.  But still
I don't recognize anything I have said in this
brief characterization; perhaps it is there in
the long form somewhere. I'll leave it to you to
accurately characterize how you want to change
("improve"? "correct"?) Lojban usage.  I'll try
to do the same for what I take to be current
usage -- keeping in mind that some of this is
open to disagreement. So, we are talking about
bears, maybe very generally, maybe in a fairly
restricted way (those in a zoo or an area, those
of a single species, et.  We may even be talking
about specific bears (in which case we can -- but
need not -- use {le}). In any case, there will be
some bears that count -- that can be cited as
evidence for or against claims, for example --
and others that don't (even though, in some sense
they are bears). Once this group of bears that
count in the discussion is established, we can
refer to them (strictly, to groups of them of
unspecified size from one to all) by {lo cribe}
(and anaphoric forms to get the same group a
second time). All of them would be referred to by
{lo ro cribe}.  But sometimes it is desirable to
change the group of bears that count in various
ways, to focus down on a subset or to expand to
include some previously not included bears.  This
can be done in a variety of ways, depending upon
what the change is and how aware the discussants
are of the parameters of the established group. 
But all of these ways come down to describing the
new group, perhaps in terms of the old group,
perhaps absolutely.  In any case, {lo cribe
poi...} or {lo broda cribe} or some combination. 
this can be done with greater or lesser care: for
going to a subclass we may say either just {lo
cribe poi ...} or "the bears we have been
discussing that are ...", and similarly to expand
we can say simply {lo cribe poi...} or "the bears
-- whether ot not we have been discussing them 
-- that ..."  We almost always take the first
option, reserving the second move for the cases
where the first fails to move the right way (for
the restricting case we also have {lo cribe ku
poi...} as well and for the expanding case we can
drop back to quantifiers + variables, but both of
these are seen as unnecessarily complex -- even
when the first shot at this fails).  This doesn't
look much like either position 1 or position 2
nor does it look like your proposals nor does it
eem in need of "correction" or "improvement." On
the last issue, it is true that attempts to
change domains sometimes fail, i.e., the hearer
ends up taking the domain to be different from
what the speaker intended. In any given case of
this, there is probably another description the
speaker could have used that would have succeeded
and, indeed, the speaker -- once he becomes aware
of the problem will produce other descriptions
until he achieves the change desired.  But using
the description that finally works at the
beginning is not really an option. For one thing,
we do not generally know beforehand what it will
be or even that the description we do use will
fail (else we would not have used it).  The
description that works will generally be more
detailed than the one that failed (though not
necessarily -- choice of detail can be as
important as number) and to use a lot of details
when fewer would work is a violation of
convention again.  On the other hand, no level of
detail is guaranteed generally to succeed, so we
might give an involved description and still
fail.  That is, the move of changing the domain
is inherently fallible and no rule about the
level of detail involved in cases of change will
make it certain (nor even improve its success to
effort ratio significantly).  

<<> Since I am now very worried about what you
mean,
> I am leery of agreeing with you about anything.
> But, yes, 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.>>

No, we deal with predicates like that all the
time and always have -- indeed with more
arguments than 5 (though the frequency declines
rapidly above 3 -- as it does in Lojban too).
And,even if it were the case that we never had
such complex predicate relations, I don't see how
this -- a curiosity of vocabulary -- relates to a
standing convention of successful conversation.

<<I just want to be able to be explicit about
what referent I mean.>>

And what prevents you?  The only objection is to
always spelling everything out when there is
reason to think that somehting less will work as
well (the reasons may be wrong, of course, but
that is not enough to justify beginning with the
whole load).

<<> implicit parts of the conversation.  I am not
> sure 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.>>

I think we are talking at cross-purposes here. I
am taking you to be saying that we always have to
specify in detail and that there are general
rules about this, but it turns out that you are
only saying that in each case we can find a
description that will work -- which no one
denies.  I do think you are also saying that we
should start with that description and, in that
case, my point is just that we don't know
beforehand which description that is and that
going into too much detail is as bad (though in a
different way) from giving too little (or, it
turns out, the wrong ones).  

<<> >
> > 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.>>

Well, as xorxes points out, it is a bad principle
to insist on implicit quantifiers.  But, as far
as I am concerned, {lo cribe} in primary
occurrences does imply that there are bears being
talked about (xorxes differs on this, though just
what he means by his contrary cases is a mystery
he has kept to himself for over a decade, I
think.  In any case, they are rather unusual
circumstances which seem generally to be
accountable for by other, natural means).  

<<> 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, they are just
not
> the ones were are talking about at the moment.

They're clearly irrelevant to the current talk.>>


Not necessarily; it depends upon what is said. 
And they may come back into the conversation at
any point without all the domain shifting we
talked about earlier.

<<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.>>

Well, "rude" maybe and being rude is against the
conventions as well.  But it is not any othese;
it is just the standard move in shifting domains
-- specifying the new one (what the old one was
does not really enter in).


<<>
> <<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 everyone 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.>>

Yes, it is the flip side of ad verecundiam.  But,
like ad verecudniam, it contains a grain of
truth: we expect more in the way of proof from
someone who does not have his credentials in
order.  You have not given us as much evidence as
we would expect even from a recognized expert. 
You have just said that something that we use all
the time is wrong but have neither demonstrated
this nor given us an alternative that is
demonstrated to be free(r) of the flaws of
established practice.


<<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)>>

As usual, I have to ask "Who is it that holds
that {ro} in these contexts refers to "relevant
all" as opposed to "all absolutely"?  Who, of
course, on the other side really means
"absolutely all"?" 

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

And what do these illustrate?  They are now so
out of context as to be a mere list of forms, all
grammatically correct (up to the point where they
cease to be Lojban) and as such meaningful, but
what are they meant to mean other than what they
do mean (which is a bit hard to specify out of
sentential context, let alone larger frames). 
All but the middle one would be naturals for
shifting domains, though of course they have
other uses as well.  I take it you want to use
them only for shifting domains?

<<> 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".>>

Yes, that is what I was trying to say by
objecting to your "nonsensical."  Sorry, if I
wasn't as clear as you needed to get the point. 
To be sure, the incongruity has a role, but it is
not what decides the issue.
 

<<> 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.>>

Ah, but they do; as witness the fact that we use
them successfully all the time.  Of course, they
fail sometimes, but so do all approaches to this
matter.  

<<> 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 this
> 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.>>

There are probably better terms for this, but
these will do.  Typically the setting context is
called the occasion  (who, where, when, what is
uttered).  I take it the domain-context is just
the domain of discourse, the relevant things.  as
you notre, this is not too important usually in
domain shifting (for obvious reasons).

<<>
> 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.>>

Well, I may have failed to understand your point,
but, insofar as I do understand it -- and what
you build from it is consistent with my
understanding -- you have failed to make your
caes in just the way I describe here.  What did I
miss?


<<> 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).>>

Now I am afraid I have lost the cases again. 
both of what positions? using the current domain
to partially explain the new domain (how the
current one is restrictd or expanded) and
defining the new domain without reference to the
current domain?  But why can't Lojban do it -- as
I said -- simply by copying your explanation of
what these cases are?  And, if it can do that,
then there is no problem of doing these two
things in Lojban. You owe us some evidence that
Lojban can't just do this and I don't see it.  At
most I see cases where Lojban has not done it one
way or the other, but that doesn't show that it
can't do it.