[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:
> {ro} indicates that all things that count as brodas are being referred
> to. Inner blank doesn't.
"All" is turning out to be quite an ambiguous word. You probably don't
mean "all (ever)", so do you mean "{ro} indicates that all things
that, given the context, count as brodas are being referred to."?
I don't think we are on the same page on "ambiguous" yet, but yes,
I do think that what counts as a broda may vary from one context
to another.
For example, to show one difference between no inner quantifier and
inner {ro}:
mi pu klama le zarci gi'e te vecnu lo mapku
I went to the market and bought hats.
mi pu klama le zarci gi'e te vecnu lo ro mapku
I went to the market and bought all hats.
There is no more context. I'm telling you that I want to say that, of
all hypothetical things, concepts, - everything - that can ever be
concieved by humans or otherwise, none of those things exist within
the box. This is a very clear and unconvoluted thought: "nothing
exists in the box". And I want to be able to express it as such,
without having to constantly explain exactly what I mean, like I've
been doing in every response since I brought the subject up.
For "nothing exists in the box", {no da zasti ne'i le tanxe} works just
fine, as far as I can tell. You don't need to explain anything.
For "of all hypothetical things, concepts, - everything - that can ever
be concieved by humans or otherwise, none of those things exist within
the box" you would use a similarly longwinded expression. It would be
a waste to have some short phrase like {no da} reserved for something
so precise, given that it is rarely if ever needed.
How do you need context
to determine what "me" refers to? You don't. Though you do need the
*setting*, which is something very different.
(I do consider the setting to be part of the context of an utterance, but
leaving that aside) "me" refers to the speaker, and that's a pretty precise
thing indeed. That's not to say it's infinitely precise. For example:
"Look at me, not my feet" (that's an actual usage I got from Google).
Does looking at my feet count as looking at me? There is no definite,
absolutely certain answer valid for all contexts. Neither is one needed.
mu'o mi'e xorxes