[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le
On 5/10/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/10/06, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is not "all" that is open to interpretation, it is "bear" (or whatever
> the predicate). The set of things that satisfy a given predicate
> relevantly depends on the context of the utterance.
So you're talking about verificity? I thought that we had put this aside.
No, I'm not, I'm talking about what's relevant and what isn't.
In most contexts imaginary bears will be irrelevant, and so they
won't be referents of {lo ro cribe}, but in some context they might
be relevant and so be part of the universe of discourse.
{sai} or {cai} aren't a solution, they're a hack that ... well, for
the purposes of this discussion, make it hard for me to give you a
sensible example. But one still exists that completery breaks the two:
we have two favorite cubs, out of a litter of 5, in a
group-owned-by-us of 10, and they're all playing with some other cubs,
in a large group. And I suddenly start talking to you about "all
bears" (however wrong I may be). For all you know, I may be talking
about the two cubs (your {ro}),
In that context, {lo ro cribe} could not be just the two cubs. You already
mentioned many more bears and therefore they are necessarily a part
of the universe of discourse. Just by mentioning something you make it
a part of the discourse.
the litter (uh, {ro sai}), our bears
(...{ro cai}?), the bears in the forest that surround us, the bears in
the country that we're in, whatever. Point being, there could me more
than 3 contexts that are a lot more sensible than "all bears".
In a given discourse the context is always one. As the conversation
proceeds, things can be added to the universe of discourse, but to
make an interpretation of a sentence you must first have the context
pinned down somehow.
I mean,
given the nature of talking about all bears, there's /usually/ more
than 3 contexts that are more applicable than it. But I want to talk
about all bears. I'm trying to start a philosophical discussion or
whatever.
How do you manage in English? Why would it be any harder in
Lojban? You simply say: "Let's now talk about all bears that ever
existed, or could have existed" or something like that.
Position 1: There is a determinate number of things that satisfy
the predicate {cribe}, independent of any context whatsoever. Therefore
in any context {lo ro cribe} refers to all and exactly those things.
Position 2: The things that satisfy any predicate may vary with
context. In a given context {lo ro cribe} refers to all and exactly the
things that in that context satisfy the predicate {cribe} (not just the
things present where the speaker is, mind you, all the things that
relevantly satisfy the predicate).
I think position 1 is simply unworkable. Notice however that anyone
who thinks it is workable can try to stick with it. Whenever someone
uses position 2 you simply mention to them whatever you think they
may heve left out, thinking it was irrelevant, and then you force them
to adopt your position, because you have introduced into the universe
of discourse what had so far been irrelevant. If you do it consistently
people will just think you are a pest (introducing an irrelevant interpretation
once can be funny, twice can be forgiven, but doing it constantly it
becomes obnoxious).
mu'o mi'e xorxes
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.