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

[John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>]

--- Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 5/17/06, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > The move from "the x that are p and the x
> that
> > are q" to "the x that are p and q" is a
> normal
> > error on the part of first month Logic
> students.
> > The correct distribution is to "the x that
> are
> > either p or q": not that everything in the
> > combined heap has both proerties but that
> each
> > has one or the other.
> 
> ki'enai for comparing me to a first-month Logic
> student. I understand
> the concept very well, but I misused a word.
> When you made typos in
> previous posts, did I hasten to offer these
> sorts of comparisons?
> Keeping this sort of stuff out of an argument
> like this benefits
> everyone.


Sorry that you took it in a derogatory sensse; I
just meant it is common and so not surprising. 
English (and I assume any language) has its
tricky bits and this is one of them.
 
> On 5/17/06, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > Contracts are, alas, rather cases of one of
> the
> > sort of thing I am pointing out, namely that
> you
> > cannot actually cover all the cases by a
> simple
> > description (or a complex one for that
> matter).
> > Consider a contract between a customer and a
> > dairy  for the dairy to deliver two quarts of
> > milk to the customer's home every Thursday. 
> One
> > Thursday a tiger escaped from a circus and
> was
> > roamin in the area of the customer's home and
> > attacking people.  The dairy told its
> deliveryman
> > not to deliver the customer's milk that day. 
> The
> > customer sued for breach of contract
> (Thursday
> > but no milk).  The court ruled for the
> defendant,
> > saying that contract did not have to say
> "except
> > on tiger days" for this to be an exception;
> tiger
> > days just don't count as Thursdays for this
> > contract.  The ruling was affirmed on appeal.
> > Here is as unambiguous a description as
> possible
> > and yet it too is relative to some interests,
> > which interests  may not be dealt with
> beforehand.
> 
> Despite the unrealistic use of "tiger days",

This is from the official report of the case.

> I'll reply on your terms.
> The court is stating that the restriction
> given, "all tuesdays", was
> not the one intended. 

No it is not.  That was the correct way to write
the contract.  It would have been unreasonable
and misleading to have put in all the conditions
that might apply.

> It's saying that both
> parties screwed up in
> writing the contract. This is a result of the
> ambiguity of "all". 

Clearly not, since "all" does not appear.  Nor is
"every" at all vague or ambiguous (or it would
not have been in the contract -- you are right
that lawyers do there best to avoid these
problems, but they come up in unpredictable ways
anyhow).

> If
> the word "ool" was defined as "every single
> one. Yes, those too. NO
> EXCEPTIONS", and it was used in a contract, how
> do you think that this
> hypothetical court would have ruled? 

The ruling given is from an actual court, an
actual case (well, HLA Hart said it was anyhow; I
don't have a citation).  How a court would decide
in a case involving the new "ool," I don't know. 
But were they consistent with this ruling they
would decide the same.  Tiger days are NOT
exceptions; they just don't count.

> Speakers
> of a language with a
> word like "ool" would be well versed in the
> dangers of using it, and
> would indeed be better contract writers - I'm
> sure that you've heard
> of clauses like
> 
> "...on all tuesdays from [...] to [...]. The
> milk company reserves the
> right to not serve milk on days that are
> unreasonable in the sole
> judgement of the milk company."
> 
> in real contracts, yes?

That would have been a sensible thing to put in
except that it is a open invitation to litigation
of a messy sort (was the judgment that delivery
was unreasonable on this day made in good faith
and by rational and/or lawful standards, and so
on).  The point is that the actual contract was
perfectly fine as it stood (and so the court
ruled).  It just is that tiger days are not among
the possible referents of "every Thursday"
(though possibly for some other wording, such as
you suggest).