[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, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
> -1: Is there a complete, universal, fixed set of referents valid for any
> utterance and context, such that any given utterance will always pick its
> referents from that set (with suitable restrictions)?
Yes, though I don't see a problem if there wasn't. This set includes
every permutation of what could be a bear in every place at every time
[...]. This set is practically infinite.
If this set did not exist, what would the problem be?
I don't think there is such thing, but you need it for the complete
specification approach to work. Otherwise, in different contexts
your starting point for restrictions could be different and so you
would end up with a different referent.
> 0: Assuming we have a referent (either picked from the context-free universal
> set hypothesized in -1, or in some other context dependent way), is there
> always a context-free answer to whether a given referent satisfies a
> given predicate?
Yes. The example that ensued suggests that we need context to help us
determine what the definition of a word is. It is a problem if the
definition is that vague - but it is a problem of the definition, and
we do our best to avoid those sorts of problems in Lojban.
Again, for the absolute approach to work, you need every
predicate to be non-vague. Unless you allow that for
some predicates {lo ro broda} has one referent fixed for all
contexts whereas for other predicates it has a referent that
does depend on the context. But if this is the case, how do
you tell which predicates are absolute and which are not?
So you would not use for example something like:
ko jgari lo ro cpana be le jubme gi'e bevri cy le zdani
Take all that's on the table and bring it to the house.
because that would include for example dust particles that
are on the table, and you don't really want those to be
brought in. You would have to add some other restriction
to {lo ro cpana be le jubme} (not sure exactly what).
If you have your hand resting on the table with the palm up,
and a stone in your palm, would you say the stone is {cpana
le jubme}?
> Do we need to define {cpana} in such
> a way that for every single context, the answer to whether a stone on the
> board counts as being "on the table" is always the same, independent of
> the context?
Yes. Use English if you want to have words that vary
based on context.
Or any other language, for that matter. I don't think it is
even possible to define words in such a way that you cover
all the uses the words will have in all posssible contexts.
You propose {lamji se sarji} for "directly supported" as opposed
to {cpana} which would also allow mediated support. Would it
be correct to use {lamji se sarji} if there was some dust on
the table, so that the stones might actually be on the dust
rather than directly on the table? Does this need to be
clarified in the definition of {lamji}? Is there a maximum
allowed empty space between two surfaces (the same for
every conceivable context?) so that {lamji} is applicable? Can
we say for example that a house is {lamji} to another if there is
a separation of one meter between them, or do air molecules
interfere with the adjacency?
> 1: Can a speaker actually restrict down to what their referant is?
> (i.e. "make a complete restriction"?)
Yes, limited by their clarity-of-mind, intellect, and vocabulary.
And would you say that there is at least potentially any
human speaker with enough clarity of mind, intellect and
vocabulary to restrict down to what their referent is in at
least a significant number of cases?
> 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?
I also offered a "2 of 10 bears in a cage, release all bears in the
cage" example earlier, to which xorxes suggested "Now, taking into
account not just the twenty bears that we've been talking about but
other bears as well, ...",
Only for the case when you thought the zoo-keeper might
be confused about what you meant. In real life, the presence
of a bear in the cage will almost certainly make it a relevant
referent of "all bears in the cage" no matter how many hours
you had been talking about other bears.
which amounts to something like {__ ro
cribe poi [in the cage, and are in context¬ in context]},
What??? Where did this "in the context & not in the context"
come from? Certainly not from me. If they are a referent
they are thereby in the context, this is a result of your
interpretation, not a restriction used to get to the referent.
which I
think is a sloppy way of doing it in any case, and ridiculous in
contrast to my suggestion.
That would indeed be ridiculous.
> 3: Is there room within the current model for the proposed usage?
Yes. Right now, {ro} for some reason means "all in context".
No, it means "all".
I say
that it should mean "all",
That's just what it means.
mu'o mi'e xorxes