A (rather long) discussion of {all}

[Alex Martini <alexjm@umich.edu>]

It seems that part of the problem in the {lo}/{le} discussion revolves
around the behavior of {all} / {ro}. I'm going to define a few terms,
work through a dialogue, and then end with some general discussion  
about {all}.

The terms {context} and {setting} are normally near synonyms. According
to the Oxford American Dictionary, here are their definitions:

context: noun the circumstances that form the setting for an
event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully
understood and assessed : the decision was taken within the context of
planned cuts in spending.

   * the parts of something written or spoken
     that immediately precede and follow a word or passage and  
clarify its
     meaning : word processing is affected by the context in which  
words
     appear.

setting: noun
   1 the place or type of surroundings where something is positioned or
    where an event takes place : cozy waterfront cottage in a peaceful
    country setting.

   * the place and time at which a play, novel, or film
     is represented as happening : short stories with a contemporary
     setting.
   * a piece of metal in which a precious stone or gem is fixed
     to form a piece of jewelry.
   * a piece of vocal or choral music composed for particular words : a
     setting of Yevtushenko's bleak poem. ¿ short for place setting .

   2 a speed, height, or temperature at which a machine or device  
can be
     adjusted to operate : if you find the room getting too hot, check
     the thermostat setting.

For this discussion, I will use context specifically to refer to the
_spoken_ context into which the {all} is placed. This includes all of
the discourse prior to the {all}, the rest of the sentence after the
{all}, and possibly what the listener anticipates.

For this discussion, I will use setting specifically to refer to the
physical location, and the common ideas between the listener and speaker
The setting is common between the speaker and listener. The context is
set by the speaker and understood by the listener.

Here is the example dialogue from which I will pull:

A and B are sitting at a table in a garden. On the table is a generic
board game involving the use of small round stones. On the ground are
assorted large stones that are decorationally arranged in the garden.
There are two bags with stones in them on the table, a black bag and a
white bag. The stones on the table and in the bags are individually
either black or white. A has just won the game, and they are putting the
game away.

(1) A: Put all the black stones in the black bag, and all the white  
ones in
the white bag.

(2) B: Just because you made all the captures doesn't mean that you  
have to
    tell me what to do.

(3) A: (joking) No, but the fact that I won all three games does.

(4) B: I think that's all the stones now. Let's go inside and eat lunch.

(5) A: Good idea. Watch out for all the stones that are along the path
    that you don't trip.

In sentence 1, {all the black stones} refers to all of the black stones
that are on the table. A is not referring to any of the black garden
stones. This is apparent to B because the garden stones would not fit in
the bag, so this proposition would be silly. It also doesn't refer to
the white/black stones that are already in the bag. From here on {all
stones} will be assumed to mean {all of the black or white stones that
we just were talking about putting in the bag}. If A or B want to change
what {all stones} refers to, they will have to use a restrictive clause
with {all} or specify something about the stones to expand the
current meaning of {all}.

Sentence 2, {all} refers to all from this game. This is apparent to A
through setting. If B wanted to expand the usage of {all games we have
ever played or will play} he must say so. Here, without the setting,
context is not clear as to {all from this just finished game} versus
{all from every past finished game}. Only setting makes the difference
between these two.

Sentence 3, {all} here is used with a number. The phrase {all games}
would normally refer to every past game, so A must use {all three} to
restrict {all} to only the games he means to say that he has won. If A
says {I won all the games} then it is less clear to B what A means,  
and B
will probably answer {All which games?}.

Sentence 4, here {all} refers back to the meaning set up by sentence 1.
Note that it does not include the garden stones. If A or B wanted to
talk about the garden stones in this context and setting, they need to
expand the scope of {all} to {all the stones, including the garden
stones} or replace the scope of {all} with {all the garden stones}.

Sentence 5, {all} is used with a restrictive clause to change its scope
here. Up to this point, {all stones} referred to the definition from
sentence one. However, since none of those stones are garden stones, the
restrictive clause forces a new scope on {all}. From now on, {all  
stones}
means {all the stones that are decorating the path in the garden}.

In general, we can see the most of the definition of {all} is determined
by what was being discussed. We can therefore say that the scope of
{all} is determined by setting, and that the speaker adjusts this to
meet his intended meaning by context.

Another way to look at it is to walk through the process of finding what
{all} refers to in a context and setting. Since I'm a programmer, I'm
going to write out a sort of human program to illustrate this.

- Make a list of things in the setting. Call it The List.
- Examine the context for restrictive phrases. Cross off from the list
  any things that do not satisfy the phrase. (all x that y)
- Examine the context for modifiers and cross off from the list any
  things that don't meet the requirement (all x of type y)
- Examine the context and cross off lightly any things that don't make
  sense. (i.e. put all the stones in the bag -> all the stones not  
already
  in the bag)
- If this gives a satisfactory scope for {all}, done. Otherwise, ask the
  speaker about the things you lightly crossed off or the things
  initially crossed off, depending on which is more plausible.

As you can see, there's quite a bit of work going on 'under the hood'
here in order for the speaker to use {all} in a way that the listener
will understand to mean the same thing. The biggest part is
plausibility; the listener simply ignores any situations that the  
speaker
probably didn't mean based on context and setting.

To apply this to {ro} in Lojban, most everything still applies. To my
understanding, {ro} means {all x, as determined by plausibility,
context, and setting}. If the speaker wants to change the scope of {ro},
then he needs to use restrictive clause(s) and/or modifier(s) to force
{ro} into a different meaning.

mo'umi'e .aleks.