[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le

On 5/10/06, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

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.


I don't understand the implications of "It is not "all" that is open
to interpretation, it is "bear" ".


> {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.


No, I didn't mention any of these bears. They're simply there. We were
sitting in silence. Suddenly, I speak up with {__ ro cribe} (with sai
or without). Which "all bears" am I talking about?


> 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.


How would you say "let's talk about all bears that have ever existed"?


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.


Handled by my {L_ ro cribe}


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).


Handled by my {L_ cribe}


I think position 1 is simply unworkable. Notice however that anyone


I don't understand. Look at my pen example, which I find completely
workable, sensible, and a very definite-restriction using position 1.


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


I don't understand what you're getting at here. I'm not planning to
correct the context, I just want to start talking about all bears,
regardless of the many interpretations of "all bears".


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).



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.