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

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

On 5/14/06, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:


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.


Because this is what occurs. The referent could be anything to start
(by the listener's reckoning). Then, we apply the first restriction
{__ cribe}. This restricts what our referent could be to bears. Then
we add a second restriction {__ cribe poi bajra}. We start with
anything, cut it down to bears, and cut it down again to runners. The
proposition that we start with nothing does not work: we would start
with nothing, and then that means "bears" ... and then we chop bears
down to bears that run? And if we don't place even the first
restriction, this means that we have nothing in mind? No, this does
not work. We add /words/, but as we add the words, we /narrow down/. I
meant what I said exactly as I said it: we let the listener know what
we're referring to via restriction.


> 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


This is a a different issue, but I do not consider the stones within
the bag to be on the table. They may be above the table, but they are
not on it. By a stretch they may be on the lower fabric of the bag,
but not on the table. The thing that is on the table is the group of
(white, black) stones. But again, this is a different issue, unrelated
to our current argument: yes, if you want to see it that way, the
restriction "not in the bag" needs to be added.


we mean only the game stones, not other stones
that are incidentally on the table. And by


There were no other stones on the table mentioned, and so I was
operating under the absolutely reasonable assumption that there were
none.


"black" we mean the darker grays as opposed to
the distinctly lighter grays.  And so on forever.



No. I see that you're trying to argue that you can never restrict
absolutely, though you avoid explicitly saying this for some reason.
You seem to be expanding the example towards including an entire
rainbow of hundreds of stones that are now upon this table. But no,
there are simply black stones, and white stones. If you want, we'll
call them light stones (>=50% of some scientific color measurement),
and dark stones (<50%). You're adjusting the situation to make my use
of certain words incorrect, but this still doesn't show that you can't
restrict completely. The restriction /was/ complete, in accordance
/with the example given/.

Your objection may be due to your perception that restrictions build
up instead of narrowing down. It may be because you've heard that "the
price of infinite precision is infinite verbosity", which does not
apply here (though "the price of exact precision is exact verbage" may
apply). Regardless, this assumption (that you cannot completely
restrict) is wrong.

Now, I may be mistaken, so I ask: is it your position that you cannot
restrict until you are left with only the intended referents? (That
is, that one cannot restrict completely?)


> 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
...


Adding those restrictions does nothing. It's like saying "that which
is an elephant... and (poi) that which is a mammal and that which is
an animal and that which is a thing...". No, I've given a complete
restriction.



> 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.


The example given implies a set of games. I'm trying to determine what
actually happened based on an English description of it. If I'm wrong,
and they actually mean "all the last three games in this garden", or
whatever, then I would have made my complete-restriction reflect that.
But I assumed that the referants in the speaker's mind were "all three
games of the last set that we played"/"all three just-previous games",
so that's how I said it, and based on my (perfectly reasonable)
assumption, my restriction was complete.



> 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.


You're correct, though it would probably be "all the stones related to
the game set (board, bags...)" (here I'm assuming that the speaker
doesn't consider that some stones may have rolled into the grass long
ago). Here we're deliberating on the best way to make a complete
restriction, but this doesn't indicate that a complete restriction
cannot be made, which seems to be your position.



> 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").



Yep, but if I was a speaker, I wouldn't make this restriction. In
fact, I may very well say "take care not to trip on stones along
paths" (which wouldn't restrict to ornamental stones or this certain
path at all, and would have a better ring to it in Lojban).


> 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.


These structures may be relevant, but they would be unneccisary. If
you mean that they are neccisary to provide a complete restriction,
I'd like to know what you think they are.


> 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.


No, it is not the case. You'll notice that both the left and the right
have been taken out of their context, but not out of their setting.
The ones on the left become vague, the ones on the right mean exactly
what the speaker intends them to mean.


> 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.


I don't understand what you're saying. The hearer makes these
additions. This is how context works to help the listener determine
what the referent is.


> 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?


Of the many examples that I've used just in the course of this
discussion, the most prevalent one is probably how I'm always forced
to either say "all (ever) bears", or "*all* bears". I'd also like to
point out that it doesn't have to be common, it has to be important.
You can make it as uncommon as you like, by relying only on incomplete
restrictions, by relying on context. And I can make it as common as I
like, by challenging myself to finding the most terse set of
restrictions that would do their job completely.

The additional explanation is given when the restriction is
incomplete: "all bears (ever, imaginary, past, present, future,
hypothetical...)" - in brackets is the additional explanation.


> 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


To say that that number is where you end up and not how you got there,
is like saying that "cribe" is where you end up, not how you got
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).


What certainly isn't how Lojban works now? My statement just above?


> 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


The CLL also implies that an inner {ro} is an assertion regarding how
many bears exist. My position wants nothing to do with that.


> 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.


It's not meant to be harsh, it's meant to be accurate. I'm not at all
arguing that we should completely restrict every single referent - not
at all. In fact, I think that it is very important for this ability to
not have to restrict fully to exist. However, the ability to restrict
completely is more important, though much less practical.


> 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 mean what xorxes was getting at: "Now, taking into account not just
the twenty bears that we've been talking about but other bears as
well, ...". But I don't really know. All I know is that Lojban doesn't
have a solid way to do what I describe - to make an antecedent that
doesn't rely on context.


> 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


It /is/ about the number of things in the referent. When I say "all
bears", I damn well mean all bears - "all such that are bears". Do I
mean "all relevant things such that are bears"? No. I mean "all such
that are bears". This extra "relevant things" that has been tacked on
seems to /me/ perverse. If we have the clear and simple "all such that
are bears", then the listener doesn't have to worry that the
restriction is incomplete, that the speaker has ommited anything.

I understand how your inner ro, inner su'o, and blank inner work.
Since you do not see how my inner ro meaning *all* corresponds to it
being an indicator that a restriction is complete, I conclude that you
don't understand my position. I urge you to try to construct some
sentances using my proposed definitions, to get some idea of how
they're used. I've done the very same using your definitions.