[lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le

["Maxim Katcharov" <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

On 5/10/06, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/10/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, the point is that you /can/ be as precise as you want to. In the
> > pen example, I restrict fully, right down to that single pen that I'm
> > thinking of, using {ro __ ro vica cu penbi}. There's no need to be
> > "infinitely" precise here: three words (ro, vi, penbi) do the job
> > completely.
>
> [That {cu} is ungrammatical there.]
>
> {nau} might be more precise than {vi} and {ca}, which rely on an unstated
> reference point.

Indeed this would be the word I want.

> But there is no fully context-independent meaning of how widely
> "here" and "now" can extend. In some context "here" could mean
> "the planet Earth", in other contexts it could mean "this room", etc.
> Same for "now".

Then restrict using "within 1 meter of me, at this exact second". This
problem of context (solved in the sentance prior) pales in comparison
to not being able to specify at all.

> > But what if I want to restrict down to "all bears that are in that
> > cage", or "all buildings on my street"? This sort of
> > complete-restriction is used all the time!
>
> Yes, and it's easy to do in Lojban:
> {lo ro cribe poi nenri le va selri'u}, {lo ro dinju pe le mi klaji}.

By your definition, "all in context"::

{lo ro cribe poi zasti gi'a xanri} - "all bears in context (the three
that are chasing us now) - of them, the ones that exist or are
imaginary (well, uh, probably all three of those, but certainly not
all bears)" - which is simply broken, as far as a reference to all
bears.

{lo ro cribe poi nenri le va selri'u} - "all bears in context (perhaps
the three cubs that we've been playing with/observing for the past
days) - of those, the ones that are in that cage" - which too is
broken: if all three bears are in the cage, we mean only those three
(and not the other four that may be in the cage).

"All in context" is a bad use for inner {ro} for these reasons.

> > I don't understand what you mean by "relevance-independant".
>
> I mean that the set of referents that a word brings into a discourse
> is never given by the word itself independently of the context of the
> discourse.

Yes, but using context to figure things out is different then refering
to the context. "I'm sure you know what I mean" vs. "X that is
relative to me in manner Y".


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.