[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:

> 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.


Both ambiguity and vagueness can in general be "solved" by context, yes.
Lojban avoids ambiguity without appealing to context. It doesn't try (and I
think that's a good thing because I don't think it's doable) to avoid vagueness
without appealing to context.


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 don't know how to use the place structure of {zasti}, I've always
thought it a bit strange.


> > 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"?


I suppose you could. I'd much rather say {lo ba'e ro cribe} though.


> 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?


{ro} indicates that all things that count as brodas are being referred
to. Inner blank doesn't.


> > 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 don't think it's ambiguous. It wouldn't *mean* {no da poi simsa lo pulce},
although the two expressions might happen to have the same referrent
in some context. That doesn't mean they mean the same thing.
{lo pendo be mi} and {lo ninmu poi lamji mi} could have the same referrent
in some context but they don't have the same meaning.


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*.


{no da} already means "nothing" by itself, you don't need to add anything.
You want to give it some absolute sense that "nothing" never has, or
perhaps that it does have in some extremely special contexts, in which
case {no da} will also work.


This is like if I were to ask you "what if by {lo danlu} I
specifically meant dog?


It means "animal(s)", never "dog". It could be used to refer to some 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?


Neither specifically nor nonspecifically, no.


Just like
{no da} doesn't specifically mean or even imply "*nothing*",


Yes, it does. (Minus the emphasis. You can add {ba'e} for that.)


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).


Did you mean {poi _na_ simsa lo pulce}? It never implies that, but in
many contexts dust is not relevant so it is not even a possible candidate.
When you say {no da poi na pulce} dust is relevant, so you are forced to
take it into account.


> > 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"?


Unless you provide some more context, I'll stick with {no da}.


> > > > (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...)".


Yes. You can't get away from context, it's always present.

mu'o mi'e xorxes