[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all}
On 5/15/06, Alex Martini <alexjm@umich.edu> wrote:
This is getting to be a really good example of a too-long thread.
Which I normally wouldn't point out, except that I really don't see
that we're clearing anything up in the process. I think a short study
break might be in order.
First, regardless of how we like it, {all} doesn't have a single
definition. Rather, it has many interpretations depending on how it's
used. This is actually not that unusual; in my first Intro to
Linguistics course, we found quite a large number of these only
looking at English. These English cmavo-type words (for lack of a
better term) are exceptionally difficult for even the best linguists
to nail down entirely because they are very fluid around the other
words in the discourse. If you want another example, write down every
use of {so} in a discourse. By my count it has at least 4 different
functions, most of which have nothing to do with the core meaning of
{x so therefore y}.
Also, here are a few useful websites that describe how lo/le are
currently defined in Lojban and some proposed (and possibly accepted)
modification to the rules. I would ask that we take a short
intermission and (re)read these.
From CLL http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-
download_wiki_attachment.php?attId=192
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=How+to+use+xorlo&bl
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=BPFK+Section%3A+gadri&bl
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Robin's%20gadri%
20Proposal
Maybe this too: http://ptolemy.tlg.uci.edu/~opoudjis/lojbanbrochure/
lessons/less4articles.html
Finally, let's look at exactly what we want to define. So far, I see
two big questions. What's the difference between {le} and {lo}, and
their counterparts {lei} and {loi}? Also, how do the inner and outer
quantifier, especially {ro} interact with each of these.
I really don't feel that I know Lojban well enough yet to make a good
explanation of the difference between {le} and {lo} without lapsing
into malglico Lojban, which isn't very helpful.
[ li'osai ]
mu'omi'e .aleks.
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
I think that we're slowly making some progress. It's a hefty subject, after all.
Answers.com gives >10 definitions for "so" ({so} = "nine"), and that
probably doesn't even cover them all. One of the things that Lojban
tries to solve are these hacked-together usages of words. All words
are not inherantly vague, we can make words have good definitions.
That's what all sides of this debate would like to do.
We won't be able to define both an inner {ro} and {le}/{lo} at the
same time. Since the last explanation I offered for {le}/{lo} used an
inner {ro}, I think that we should clear {ro} up first.
I think that the problem may be that we don't have any definite way to
know which usage is better. Perhaps we should set up some criterea
under which to judge:
1: Can a speaker actually restrict down to what their referant is?
(i.e. "make a complete restriction"?)
2a: Is it important to be able to make complete restrictions?
2b: Is there something that the current model doesn't handle well that
is handled by the proposed usage?
3: Is there room within the current model for the proposed usage?
If the answer to 1 is "no", I will give up my position. If the answer
to 2 is a definite "no" (as opposed to a "well, we can sort of hack
around it, most of the time"), I will give up my position. If the
answer to 3 is "no", then I will try to think of some other way to
propose this feature.