[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] A (rather long) discussion of {all}
On 5/13/06, Alex Martini <alexjm@umich.edu> wrote:
[...]
This is a good discussion of the subject. I'd like to expand on it in
a way that could shed some light on what I'm arguing regarding the
subject of {ro}/all. I'll use "context" and "setting" as they have
been defined.
When people speak, a referent is always involved. The referent could
be a number of things, it could be a single thing. Sometimes the
referent is not physical: "the concept of a bear...", "that word",
"that thought". Sometimes the number is very large: "all of
everything", "all bears(ever)". Sometimes it is very small - singular
even: "those bears", "me", "that cage".
A referent can be seen as "something that can be restricted to". A
restriction is the chopping off of all things such-that-aren't-X, and
leaving an antecedent that presents such-that-are-X. If you've chopped
off everything that isn't and are left with only your referent, then
the restriction is complete. Most of the time, people will make
incomplete restrictions - restrictions that nudge the listener towards
what is meant, but are missing some further restrictions that would
make them complete. The listener must determine what these missing
restrictions are based on context. Let's consider the same examples
previously given:
(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.
Now, let's take the antecedents out of the context (but not out of the
setting). The given antecedents on the left (a), and those that would
restrict completely on the right (b):
1: all the black stones, all the white stones -- all black stones that
are now on this table, [same for white]
2: all the captures -- all the captures related to that last game
3: all three games -- all three just-previous games (or all games today?)
4: all the stones -- all stones related to that last game
5: all the stones that are along the path -- all stones that are along
this path (now?)
We see that the given antecedents (left) are not restricted
completely, except for perhaps 5a. Notice that of these given
antecedents, the only one that gives the proper indication of what the
referent is is 5a (unless we mean stones that are on the path /now/).
However, when reading the complete restrictions on the right, we know
exactly what the referents are, and they're exactly the referents
intended. It really isn't a difficult job to restrict your antecedents
completely, as we see here. Also of note is how the listener of the
full sentences (containing _a) above would fill in the remaining
restrictions, exactly as they are given on the right (_b), based on
context - for example, for 1a, the listener would fill in based on
context "...that are now on this table".
When you've given a completely-restricted antecedent (as I have on the
right), it's a good idea to let your listener know this, or they might
very well assume that context might need to be used to restrict
further (as it usually would).
English lets the listener know that the restriction is complete with
an emphasis on "all", or with additional explanations.
Now, an explanation of how all this currently applies to Lojban.
{L_ cribe} is a restriction to bears. {L_ cribe poi bajra} is a
restriction to bears and runners. Adding an {nau} restricts it to the
most immediate space and time, and so on.
Adding an explicit number into the inner quantifier will let the
listener know that the should restrict down to that number. {L_ pa
cribe} hints that the number of referents is one.
Now, when we say {L_ cribe} (blank inner) we leave the user to
restrict using context. The listener will pick out the most applicable
referents.
The current interpretation of {L_ ro cribe} is that it refers to all
relevant bears.
The current interpretation of {L_ su'o cribe} is that it refers to
some relevant bears.
What's the difference between {L_ cribe} and {L_ ro cribe}? There
isn't any practical difference. In the former, it is said "we don't
say anything about the number", in the latter "all those that are
relevant". These are two perspectives on (or parts of) the same
underlying principle: "Listener, we're not giving you a
number-restriction, so just use context to guess what the referent
is".
Lojban seems to have one way to signal that the restrictions are
complete: with additional explanations. I say "seems to" because this
is what has been told to me.
I find this more than strange. {ro}, being synonymous with a blank
inner quantifier is readily available (and perhaps may have been
intended) to serve as the marker that the restriction is complete and
that the listener shouldn't add any other restrictions using context.
Perhaps it served this function, and was confused to mean some
assertion regarding how many there really are in existence right now?
I don't know.
The definitions that make sense to me are:
{L_ ro cribe} - *all* such that are bears
{L_ su'o cribe} - some relevant bears
{L_ cribe} - the most contextually sensible number of relevant bears
(For the last one, I don't say "all relevant bears" because the given
definition is enough - the word "all" would not clarify it, and would
probably make it worse.)
I invite comments.