[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, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
You also need it for "future bears" to work, and for "past bears" to
work in a way that isn't "such that are in our memories now".
Otherwise, in different contexts
You mean in different situations/settings, yes?
your starting point for restrictions could be different and so you
would end up with a different referent.
Well, given that the listener would know the setting (i.e. who mi is,
when it's happening, etc.), they should also know what the starting
point (out of the various ones) is, assuming that the starting point
varies at all, which it doesn't. (Which is why I asked why it would
matter.)
Why is it wrong to use this hypothetical set that includes every
permutation of what could be a bear in every place at every time
[...]?
> > 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).
You'd probably want to restrict it to whatever word means item/usable
object / trinket / distinguishable-from-here object / etc. So yes, you
can do it, though it's more of a bother than it usually would be.
You'd probably just use a blank inner instead.
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}?
Yes, assuming the table offers some support-from-below to your hand.
> > 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
{lamji} means "adjacent/beside/next to/in contact with". So even if
there was a that layer of dust or molecules, it would still make
sense. I see what you're getting at - at what point does something
become big enough to cause two things to not touch? At what point is
something no longer a bear? I would say that my {lamji} has my
absolute criteria, your {lamji} has your absolute criteria.
This brings up a very interesting point: all words that you use are
inherantly non-veridical. If I see a group of things that represent
the various stages of a change from bear to table, I'll have a
definition of where things stop being a bear, and of where things
start being a table. And you have to use my definition. So if I tell
you {lamji cpana}, I mean it by my definition as it was at the time I
said it.
So yes, words can mean different things based on who said them.
There's a chance of a situation arising where what I think you meant
by bear isn't what you meant by bear. A very small chance, in contrast
to the chance that the context is ambiguous. I don't know how to solve
that problem, but this doesn't make my efforts to solve this problem
futile.
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?
Certainly. I sense a trap, and hope that it won't be one of technical
definition.
> > 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.
If I've been talking about 20 certain bears, and I saw 2 of those
certain bears in a cage, and said "release {L_ ro cribe}" (your
definition), is it certain that I'm talking about all the bears in the
cage? Maybe I'm talking about the three bears that I saw in the cage?
Possibley I'm talking about those two contextually sensible bears -
why would I care about the rest of the bears, after all? It doesn't
seem very certain to me at all. And again, look at all the
interpretations that aleks's speaker's sentances allowed.
> 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.
1 "Now, taking into account not just the twenty bears that we've been
talking about but other bears as well, ...".
2 "that we've been talking about" = "that are in the context of the
conversation" (i.e. "context" and not "setting")
3 "now, taking into account not just the twenty bears that are in the
context of the conversation, but also bears that are not in the
context of the conversation" ("other")
4 "X such that are bears, and such that are both in context and not in context"
"...are in context¬ in context"
or "...and are both those that we've been talking about and those that
we havn't been talking about", if 2 is wrong. Or did I mess that up
elsewhere?
>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".
Your "all" seems to /be/ "all in context". If your {ro} meant "all" as
I describe it, you wouldn't be arguing that {L_ ro cribe} could
possibley mean, if the context was suggestive of it, "just all the
bears *in the zoo*".