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

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

On 5/19/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]

"Unless you're dealing within a {zasti}-type relationship, zasti is
implicitly added as a restriction." This rule that I defined has
nothing to do with context, it's more like a rule of grammar than
anything.

[...]

Adding a sticky tense or redefining
a word has nothing to do with context. Context originates from things
that we say, stickyness and redefinitions originate from what we say.
Stickyness and redefinitions do not originate from context.


For me, both of these are instances of context. In any case, it doesn't
really matter whether we call it "context" or something else. The important
thing is that in at least in those two cases the referent of {lo ro cribe} will
change because of things said in a different part of the discourse. So
those two at least are cases where our positions coincide. We can start
from there.

Now, what exactly counts as a zasti-type relationship?

    ze'i lo ro cribe cu zasti
    "Not all bears exist."

    mi pu viska lo pixra skina i lo ro cribe pe ri cu dasni lo mapku
    "I saw a cartoon. All bears in it wore hats."

Would you agree with those usages? In the first case, {zasti} is a
zasti-type relationship, so {lo ro cribe} includes non-existing bears.
In the second case, I would say {lo ro cribe} also must include
non-existing bears, but is {dasni} a zasti-type relationship?

As for stickyness, consider these three situations:

(1) A formal agreement such as
<http://www.grrb.nt.ca/pdf/wildlife/grizzly/Grizzly%20Bear%20Management%202002.pdf>
where {lo ro cribe poi se catra lo prenu} would be licensed
by the formal definitions at the beginning of the agreement.

(2) A semi-formal situation where for example an instructor with a prepared
speech explains the agreement to a group of people. They may start their
talk by saying: "In what follows, when I say 'bear' I will mean the grizzly
bears at GSA" and so on.

(3) An informal situation: "You're new here, right? OK, then you have to know
this: all bears killed by people must be accounted for, no exceptions are
admitted".

Now, if I understand the proposal correctly, you would not object to usages
(1) and (2), because the terms have been defined explicitly, but you would
object to using {lo ro cribe poi se catra lo prenu} in (3) because it relies
on common sense and context and not on something stated explicitly
in order to figure out the referent. Is that right?

mu'o mi'e xorxes