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

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

On 5/21/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:


I have trouble seeing much of a difference between ambiguity (multiple
interpretations) and vagueness (not clearly expressed).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiguity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagueness


I can't imagine a use of "me" or "I" that is ambiguous.


Me neither.


> > > > >      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."
> > >
> > >       mi pu klama lo dalpanka i lo ro cribe pe ri cu dasni lo mapku
> > >       "I went to a zoo. All bears in it wore hats."
> > >
> > Yes, zasti-typeness is figured out from context. {pe} is, after all,
> > highly context-based, and so are, usually, ti/ta/tu and friends.
> ´
> {pe ri} = {poi ke'a srana ri}. It is not more context-based than other

In what way do they pertain to the cartoon? What are you really
saying? There are many ways that something can pertain to something
else.


Indeed.


If I'm a runner, I in some way pertain to the path I run on.
What you're saying here is that the bears pertain to the cartoon, yes,
but what they really are is "existing within the perceptual universe
of the cartoon". Knowing that it's this and not some other type of
"pertains" relies heavily on context.


Exactly.


> That's why context is so important. When we are reading a fictional work,
> we know what the context is, we don't need to add "who is a fictional
> character" every time we mention Alice, and indeed we shouldn't, because
> within the context of the story she isn't.

"We shouldn't" is wrong - it is, after all, the correct way to put it.


No, it would be incorrect because in the context of the fiction she is real,
not fictional.


I'd however agree strongly with "there must be an easier way". If I
was absolutist, I would say that not only do you have to say "Alice
picked up an imaginary ball" (or "ball such that exists in..."), but
you'd have to say "rocks such that are cpana the table and such that
exist in reality". It would be the most logical way to say it, and
would probably induce much clearer thought and communication


I doubt that. I suspect it would make communication very hard, or
even impossible.

- but

it'd be a pain, so I say that this whole exists/imaginary thing should
be based on context.


Right.


> > "I am going to speak to you about the grizzlies at GSA" implies "I am
> > going to speak to you about *only* the grizzlies at GSA", which seems
> > to be the same as "when I speak about bears, I mean only bears in
> > GSA".
>
> Not logically, no. That I am going to talk about X does not preclude my
> talking about Y too. It does suggest that when I say "all bears killed by

Good. Then if he meant it as he said it, he would need to specify that
he is talking about those bears, or not use {ro}, because he could at
some point start talking about bears that aren't in GSA, right?


Under your proposal, I supose he would. That's one of the reasons I think
it's unworkable.


> What if he wanted to emphasize the {ro} but still remain informal. Something
> like "*All* bears killed by people must be accounted for". How do you
> emphasize a word that must be understood but cannot be pronounced?

I'm not exactly sure. How do you emphasize intentional ambiguity in
other cases?


I don't understand what you mean, there is no ambiguity being emphasized
in that case.


Like, say, if you wanted to emphasize that you meant all
bears in *GSA*?


{lo cribe pe la ba'e gysy'as} for instance.


And, assuming that your blank inner is different from
your inner ro (which you seem to support, and I deny), how do you
emphasize your blank inner?


There is nothing to emphasize in that case. As I said, I do not think
that blank inner stands for anything.


So you're saying that you have a way to say "nothing like dust", but
no way to say "nothing",


No, I didn't say that. I can say both: {no da poi simsa lo pulce} and {no da}.


1: Can a speaker actually restrict down to what their referant is?
(i.e. "make a complete restriction"?)


For all practical purposes, yes.


2a: Is it important to be able to make complete restrictions?


It is important to be able to make complete enough restrictions in any
given context, yes. You can do this both in English and in Lojban, and
in any language that serves to communicate.


2b: Is there something that the current model doesn't handle well that
is handled by the proposed usage?


Not that I can see.


3: Is there room within the current model for the proposed usage?


Yes, you are free to try to use the language the way you propose.
I'm pretty sure you won't succeed, even if you try, because the level
of permanent precision that you would require would be unbearable,
but you can always try.


I think that 2b is proven "yes", and that 2a is proven "yes" by "there
should not be anything that a human can think of that cannot be said
(in Lojban) exactly with the precision with which it was thought".

I think that 1 is proven "yes" most specifically by :

me: "what have I failed to restrict?"
xorxes: "For all practical purposes, nothing. In an absolute sense, I
don't know"

which is a part of the entire following (which you (xorxes) did not respond to):

> > (1) A: Put (all the black stones that are cpana this table now) in
> > this black bag
> >
> > Here's a rough idea of the situation, so that you don't think I'm
> > changing anything: There's one table and one black bag in my
> > perception. All the black stones supported-from-below-by the table are
> > from the game-set (and therefore fit in their bag). There are no
> > stones in the black bag, because they were dumped out, so saying just
> > cpana is exactly what I want to say.
> > So, what have I failed to restrict?
>
> For all practical purposes, nothing. In an absolute sense, I don't know,

What do you mean you don't know? You think that the stones might
actually be dried berries/plastic imitations, or what? I assure you
that I'm talking about typical stones, and that they fit both our
models of what stones should be very well. Yes, a crazy person might
exist that calls them elephants, but between you and me, I think that
this restriction is 100% complete.


Sounds complete enough to me too, I'm not sure what kind of response
you expect here.


> because I don't have full access to the situation that you are imagining.
> I assume for example that you are not imagining any stones that can
> just disappear before I grab them, or stones that may turn into bears, or ...
> but how can I be absolutely certain?

I've said that my perception of any language requires that anything
that isn't part of a zasti-type relationship (..imaginary,
hypothetical...) have an implicit zasti, so no, they aren't imaginary.
And they aren't holograms, I would have called them stone-holograms if
they were.


OK, that was my impresion too.

mu'o mi'e xorxes