[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, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

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 see that these describe vagueness as what I've referred to in
'people have varying bounds'. Ambiguity most easily described as "a
word that has multiple meanings", which is not better than the full
definition of "something that is open to interpretation [based on
context]" - brackets are my clarification.

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=ambiguous
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/ambiguous


> 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.


Note that this is the only thing I would tolerate being based on
context, because I can't think of a way yet to say it without adding a
{poi zasti...} to everything.



> > 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.


Yes but from the point of view of the "context" (perceptual universe)
of the world, she is imaginary. Using zasti's x3 might get what you're
getting at across, but I don't quite know how that x3 is used.
"...under metaphysics", what's that mean?



> 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.


It would make *some* communication more time consuming, because you'd
have to add this restriction to a lot of things *iff you use my {ro}*,
yes. If you're a programmer, I equate this sort of additional burden
to, say, the burden of having to type out "printToScreen()" instead of
"ps()".


> > > "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.


It's workable, it's just more time consuming when you want to actually
use my{ro}.



> > 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.


why can't you then say "bears... pe (having something to do with) ba'e allness"?



> 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.


I assert that it has to stand for /something/. If it didn't stand for
anything at all, then you wouldn't be choosing a group to say
something about. I say that it stands for something like "the most
contextually sensible number of X". You seem to see a difference
between your blank inner, and your inner {ro} - what is that
difference?


> 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}.


{no da} is *ambiguous*, it could mean either {no da poi simsa lo
pulce} or {???} (*nothing*). I repeat myself:

I'm asking you how I can be specific that I mean *nothing*. Like, if I
by {no da} meant "no dust", I could be specific (via your method) that
I meant "no dust" by adding that {da} is dust or whatever. But I'm
asking how you make unambiguous the other case: that by {no da} that
you mean *nothing*.


This is like if I were to ask you "what if by {lo danlu} I
specifically meant dog? And what if I specifically meant elephant?"
and you were to answer "{lo gerku}, and {lo danlu}". Well, yeah, but
{lo danlu} doesn't *specifically* mean "elephant", does it? Just like
{no da} doesn't specifically mean or even imply "*nothing*", since it
may just as well imply {no da poi simsa lo pulce} if the context was
in that favor (and it seemingly always is).



> 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.


Ok, if you can make complete enough restrictions in Lojban, tell me
how to, by your version of it, say *specifically* (as in, a "complete
enough" restriction or whatever), that you mean "nothing"?


> > > (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.


I don't want to misunderstand you. Perhaps you meant "complete enough,
but it still relies on context (referents and concepts brought up or
implied...)".