Re: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all}

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

Thanks.  Having this all together in one place
does make the issue clearer.

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

> 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:

I'm not sure why a referent needs to be gotten by
restriction rather than by buiding up: starting
from a blank we add on qualities until we hve an
adequate represssntation of what is intended.  I
don't say that this opposite approach makes any
significant difference in the result, just that
the chopping away idiom is not forced by what
actually occurs.
 
> (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]

and are not already in the bag on the table. and
we mean only the game stones, not other stones
that are incidentally on the table. And by
"black" we mean the darker grays as opposed to
the distinctly lighter grays.  And so on forever.

> 2: all the captures -- all the captures related
> to that last game

That is, actually occurring in the last game and
made in accordance with the rules of that game
...

> 3: all three games -- all three just-previous
> games (or all games today?)

Well, some unspecified  (as noted) three games
with no other games of this sort between any two
of them and ending with the one just finished. 
The time span involved is indefinite but -- we
assume -- known to the conversants, who keep
track of the games they play.

> 4: all the stones -- all stones related to that
> last game

I thought it was the ones on the table.  These
need not be all used in the last game but should
be picked up and put away anyhow.

> 5: all the stones that are along the path --
> all stones that are along
> this path (now?)

The presentation seems to make this just the
ornamental stones along the path, not incidental
rocks, but, given the rest of the senrtence, this
is probably unimpotant (unless, of course, the
hearer slips on one of the rocks and says "Hey,
you should have warned me about these, too").
 
> We see that the given antecedents (left) are
> not restricted
> completely, except for perhaps 5a. 

Notice that all the right one also have furhter
relevant restrictions which are nonetheless
correctly omitted as obvious from the
presentation.  As are most of what is added in
moving from left to right.

> 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/).

What is imporoper about the left versions?  To be
sure, we could add more, but we always can.

> However, when reading the complete restrictions
> on the right, we know
> exactly what the referents are, and they're
> exactly the referents
> intended. 

As of course is the case with the left ones in
this situation.  

> 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".

It is doubtful that the hearer actually does such
additions, he probably just acts on what is given
 in the light of his understanding of the
situation.  If he does something wrong, his
explanation is not usually in terms of a mistaken
addition to the given, nor is his explanation of
how he knew what to do right.
 
> 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.

Examples?  I don't see cases of "all" used in
this way as common.  And, if the description is
complete, what is the additional explanation?

> 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.

OK, passing over the question about
"restriction."
 
> Adding an explicit number into the inner
> quantifier will let the
> listener know that they should restrict down to
> that number. {L_ pa
> cribe} hints that the number of referents is
> one.

It doesn't hint.  It says the number of things
being referred to is one.  "Restricts" seems even
less apt here, the number is where you end up,
not how you get there.  To be sure, if you end up
with two things you know you are not yet where
the speaker meant you to be, but that is not --
in itself anyhow -- a help in getting there.

> 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.

Ahah! Here is where you are going to try to make
some sort of move.  By stressing that {lo cribe}
is a case where the hearer picks things out using
context, you are setting up some other case --
presumably {lo ro cribe}, given all the talk
about "all" -- as a case where the hearer picks
thigs out without context.  I don't see this --
if it is the way you want to go.  It certainly is
not how Lojban works now and it does not seem to
be a useful way to change (even if it can be made
clear).
 
> The current interpretation of {L_ ro cribe} is
> that it refers to all
> relevant bears.

Yes. That is what is said literally: bears that
amount to all of them in number.
 
> The current interpretation of {L_ su'o cribe}
> is that it refers to
> some relevant bears.

Yes again, in the same way.
 
> What's the difference between {L_ cribe} and
> {L_ ro cribe}? There
> isn't any practical difference. 

As noted, this is controversial.  To be sure, CLL
says that {lo cribe} is just the implicit form of
the explicit {su'o lo ro cribe}, but I don't
think anyone really believes that any more (if
they ever really did -- it is borrowed from
Loglan, possibly uncritically). The present
position is clearly to deny implicit quantifiers
altogether and to treat the extension of the
referents as either unspecific or as determined
by external information. At the most
conservative, {lo cribe} would be taken as
equivalent to {ro lo su'o cribe}, exactly
parallel to {le cribe}.

> 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".

"Guess" seems a little harsh; there are good,
albeit fallible, argument patterns to get to the
answer.  
 
> Lojban seems to have one way to signal that the
> restrictions are
> complete: with additional explanations. 

I am not sure what you mean here: what would
count as ana dditional explanation added to a
complete set of restrictions?  This seems
paradoxical.

>I say
> "seems to" because this
> is what has been told to me.

Who told you this?  This does not sound like
either CLL or xorxes or me.  But then again, it
is not clear what this claimed report actually
said.
  
> 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.

This seems to me perverse.  Internal {ro} is
about the number of things in the referent, not
about the completeness of the referring
expression (the similarity ot "all" would require
that "all" be used in the suggested way and that
is a claim that does not yet have any evidence
presented for it).
Of course, the claim about {lo cribe} and {lo ro
cribe} is not well founded either.

> 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.

Well, of course, as a description of how many
there are in existence (or whatever) it is a
tautology; it is how many of those are being
referred to by this description (on one
explanation anyhow, the other is more complex).

 
> The definitions that make sense to me are:
> 
> {L_ ro cribe} - *all* such that are bears

You mean, as opposed to relevant bears?  That is
currently correct and I don't see any
justification in what you have said for changing
it.

> {L_ su'o cribe} - some relevant bears
> {L_ cribe} - the most contextually sensible
> number of relevant bears

This says nothing about the number of relevant
bears at all; the number is what it turns out to
be when all the relevant bears are assembled.


> (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.)

Well, and also because that is not what the
original means.

> I invite comments.

Herewith.