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

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

On 5/16/06, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

that you mean that your description is complete
only in a given situation (indeed, a given
description of a situation), not that it will
work everywhere.  But then the question is -- as
it always was -- how is this not dependent on the
situation (or its description)?  How is this an


It /is/ dependant on the /setting/. But it /isn't/ dependant on the
/context/. Do you clearly understand the difference between setting
and context? {mi} is determined based on setting. {L_ cribe} is
determined based on context. My {L_ ro cribe} is not determined based
on setting nor context. My {L_ ro cribe poi nenri L_ va selri'u} would
be based on setting because there's a {va} in there. If there was a
{pu} in there, it would be based on setting.

If you rely on setting, you won't be mistaken in determining what the
referent is correctly. If you rely on context, you may be mistaken.


See above.  So you want completeness within a
given situation description.  Thus you will leave
out anything not mentioned in tht description,
even if it turns out to play a role in actual


aleks provides a description of a situation. Do you understand the
difference between a description of a situation, and the situation?

From his description of his situation, I formulate in my mind what the

situation probably was. I then provide my own description of the (my
conceived) situation.

I might not properly describe aleks's situation, but that doesn't
matter in the least, because I'm describing my situation correctly,
though my understanding of what the situation actually was (based on
his description) might be wrong.


I doubt that he could have presented things so
completely that it would not be possible to slide
in some unmentioned feature.  It is very hard to
predict what might go wrong.


(1) A: Put (all the black stones that are cpana this table now) in
this black bag,
and (all the white stones that are cpana this table now) in the white bag.
(2) B: Just because you made (all the captures in that
just-previous-to-now game-instance that we played) doesn't mean that
you have to tell me what to do.
(3) A: (joking) No, but the fact that I won (all of the
three-just-previous-to-now that we played games) does.
(4) B: I think that's (all the stones now 'belonging' to this
game-board). Let's go inside and eat lunch.
(5) A: Good idea. Watch out for (all the stones that are currently
along this path) that you don't trip.

Keeping in mind that I'm using the definition of "all" that doesn't
mean "all ... only that are relevant", please show me how a slide can
occur.


>
> But in /this/ situation, they are not.

This we really don't know.  They are called
"stones,"  which, in a game context is simply
ambiguous. *You* can specify what you want in
your interpretation, but the original does not.



Do you mean that the definition of stones might actually be
game-pieces? Because it isn't. I'm not changing the definitions at
all. I'm seeing the stones / gamepieces / things / materials /
roundish objects / etc. as stones, not game pieces.


> You have yet to present a further difficulty
> (as you term it) that is
> either neccisary, or doesn't stem from what
> seems to be a belief that
> the situation is vague in the mind of the
> speaker.

OK. Let's suppose the speaker has a perception
(description) of the situation and wants to
specify a referent.  He has an expression whihc
is adequate givne this situation description and
he may (maybe also, maybe the same) have a
complete{ expression for the purpose.  The
"complete" expression is adequate (I will grant
for the present purposes cerainly).  The adequate
expression is no longer than the complete one.
So, suppose he uses the adequate one and it
works, the hearer comes to the intended referent.
 In that case, the "complete" expression is
superfluous, if it is different, and useful, if
the same, because it is adequate, not because it
is complete.  On the other hand, suppose the
adequate expression fails, the hearer does not
come t the intended referent.  Since the
expression was adequate to the situation
description of the speaker, it must be that the
hearer is working with a different description,
one for which the speaker's expression is not
adequate.  But, since the "complete" expression
is complete only for the first situation
description, we have no assurance that it is even
adequate, let alone complete, for the hearer
description.  Since it is generally more detailed
than the adequate expression and thus more
closely tied to the original description, it is
likely to fail the new description even more.  So
the "complete" expression reaches the goal of
introducing a new referent only occasionally and
accidentally when the adequare expression fails.
In the meantime, using the "complete" expression
always will result in generally longer
expressions. It is not clear that the need to
occasionally correct a missed referent results in
a longer average expression than always using the
"complete" expression.  On balance, then, using
adequate expressions seems the more natural
("better") choice.



I don't think I understand what you're talking about here, but I'll
make a guess and respond:

A complete restriction is not more useful than an incomplete
restriction when context makes the referent overwhelmingly obvious in
the incomplete restriction. Complete restrictions are useful for when
context is vague, like in my "2 of 10 bears in a cage, release all
bears in the cage" example. Another example is how you and I can't
really be sure of which of the various interpretations of A and B's
sentences is correct. Have a look at any contract to see yet more
examples of complete restrictions.


And yet this depends upon at least the table
being clearly specified (is "this" enough? -- and
isn't it contextual anyhow).  That is, I don't
see this as context free.  I also don't think


Yes, it is enough, the implication is that I'd be pointing at one
thing in my area of perception that fits "table", or it would be the
very nearest table to me, or what have you.

No, it's not based on context, it's based on setting. So it's ok if
it's based on "the table being clearly specified".


<< You can't have a
situation-independant antecedent.>>

What does "antecedent" mean here?


(Described below.) What I just-above ("you can't have...") said is
probably confusing; I take it back.



<< You percieve the situation to be a
certain way, and you'll restrict based on that.
Your perception might
even be wrong - maybe you didn't notice that
there were some non-game
stones on the table or whatever. But your
restriction would still be
right based on your perception.>>

Is your perception (situation description) what
you mean by "antecedent."  Then, of course, since


No (roughly):

The situation is what happened or what you have in your mind as
happening. The "situation description" is pretty much everything that
aleks said at the start of this thread related to his example. The
setting concerns where and when something happened, and who "mi" is,
how "va" would be treated, etc. The antecedent is the group of words
that directly determine what is being referred to, based on setting.
The listener will then determine what the referent is based on this
antecedent, and on context.


just-previous games". Are you saying that context
has already
specified this? Because that's the exact problem
that I'm trying to
address: when context is the only thing that
"specifies" something,
and it (context) is ambiguous (as it always is,
to some extent).>>

Well, if it doesn't specify that (and I take it
"the last three games" does something along that
line) then where did you get it from.


Setting.


<<> > 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).
>
> Though, if they should find one, it should
> probalby (you don't actually say in your
> "complete" description) go into the bag, too.

I don't see how that's relevant: the speaker is
saying "I think I got
all of the stones into the bag", he isn't saying
"I did my best to get
all of the stones into the bag".>>

But his thought may be wrong in some absolute
sense.  In that case, he has missed the referent


So what if his thought is wrong? His description of his thought isn't.


<<> > 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.>>

Actually, my point is just that, even if
"complete descriptions" (in your sense) are
possible -- as they are -- they are not any


You agree that complete descriptions, as I describe them, are
possible? Your arguments above seem to contradict this.


better than other devices for getting new
referents (the ultimate point).


Ok, what's the other device for getting the new referent in this case:

Consider: I've been talking to a zookeeper about 20 certain bears for
the past hour, and in fact, I'm in the middle of a sentence regarding
them just as we get to a somewhat filthy cage/habitat, in which I see
2 of those 20 bears. I say "take all the bears in the cage to the
infirmary for a checkup, right now". The zookeeper takes the two bears
out of the cage, and begins shutting the door. I stop him, and say
"take ALL the bears in the cage to the infirmary for a checkup".

The new referent would be "all bears". I want to convey "take ALL
[...]", without repeating myself. Observing that the listener did not
understand and then repeating myself in a way that hints at what I
really meant is *not* an "other device" that I would accept as valid,
much less better than what I propose.


> paths" (which wouldn't restrict to ornamental
> stones or this certain
> path at all, and would have a better ring to it
> in Lojban).>>
>
> That is, the "complete" restriction you give
> originally is not the "real" complete
> description?

No, I'm just saying that I would say something
different, something
that has a different restriction on it.>>

So, a complete description is not unique in a
given situation (description).  Or did my


No, I'm saying that I'd be talking about a different referent, and so
would be giving a new complete-description.


Unless I'm unbelievably mistaken, saying that an
inner {ro} refers to
*all* - well, that tells how many things are in
the referent.>>

But I thought you just said that what {lo ro
cribe} did was signal that the desciption was
complete.


Yes, it does both. Because {ro} would refer to "*all*", we could then
safely always assume that the restriction was complete - that it
didn't refer to "well, not *all*, but some of *all*, specifically 'all
that are relevant' given the context". That is, if I say "*all* bears"
(and you understood me as I intended) you wouldn't think "he very
probably means all such that are bears... and such that are in the
zoo".


But no one has seriously held to that since a
week after CLL was published (and damned few
before it). It was a careless carry-over from a
problematic situation in Lolgan.  So, why bring
this in here?


I'm just stressing that I'm not bringing this in here, in case the
problem was that you assumed that I had.


Ah, the philosophical bear set.  I really rarely
mean that except when I am in the philo mode.  I
am surprise that you mean that unless you are in
that mode.  Most often I mean some
spatio-temporarily delimited set of bears.. I
rarely care about talking bears, winged bears and
the like, just about the ones that might affect
me.


Your 'spatio-temporary delimited set of bears' is what I call 'the
contextually sensible set of relevant bears', yes?


arguing for its inclusion
into your version of the language.>>

So, since we don't have that -- anywhere, why are
you arguing for its mythical inclusion?


We do have it. We just don't have a /sensible/ way of expressing it in Lojban.