[lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le

[John E Clifford <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

I'm still not clear about the point of all this. 
Apparently you are saying either that {ro} in
Lojban does not work as it has been taken to work
or that it ought not be used as it is.  The first
seems to be false, that is, we seem to use it
successfully just fine.  The second is largely
irrelevant, as "ought"s often are about language:
things are as they are and, barring total
breakdown, are not going to change.  And your
remarks have not shown a total (or even partial)
breakdown. Rather they seem to show that you have
not yet mastered this area of Lojban -- not a
surprising event since it is as difficult as any
in the languages -- and thus are criticizing
ahead of your data.  But in case this analysis is
incorrect or, if it's correct, to help you get on
board, I'll go on.


--- Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 5/10/06, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > --- Maxim Katcharov
> <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On 5/9/06, John E Clifford
> > > <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > --- Maxim Katcharov
> > > <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > {__ __ ro cribe} refers to all bears.
> At
> > > the
> > > > > very least all things
> > > > > that were, are, and will be bears,
> > > everywhere
> > > > > (maybe even imaginary
> > > > > bears, story-bears, dreamt-bears, or
> > > > > hypothetical
> > > > > I'm-afraid-a-bear-will-eat-me bears) -
> > > > > henceforth "all bears".
> > > >
> > > > Well, no.  {_ _ ro cribe} refers to all
> the
> > > bears
> > > > relevant in the present context, which
> may be
> > > > anything from the couple specifed to all
> the
> > > > actual and possible bears.  In a neutral
> > > context,
> > > > it usually means all current actual
> bears.
> > >
> > > I understand this and see the utility. But
> I
> > > also see a major problem:
> > > this approach makes it so that Lojban has
> no
> > > way to refer to all bears
> > > specifically (specifically as in the
> opposite
> > > of vague in "in Lojban
> > > you can express things as specifically or
> > > vaguely as you'd like").
> > > What if context overwhelmingly favors three
> > > bears? For example, three
> > > bears are chasing us -- I say {__ __ ro
> cribe},
> > > and obviously I mean
> > > all these three bears, right? But what if
> my
> > > intent is to say "all
> > > bears can't climb trees"? (however wrong I
> may
> > > be.) I have no proper
> > > (and consistent) way to say this, because
> in
> > > this case using an inner
> > > {ro} clearly would default it to "all of
> the
> > > bears chasing us here-now
> > > can't climb trees", which is not what I
> want to
> > > say.
> >
> > First of all, what is the relevant context is
> > largely the speaker's choice, though he has
> an
> > obligation to bring the hearer onto his page
> if
> > he goes to far from the "obvious" context. 
> In
> > the second place, the limitiations of context
> 
> Then use my blank inner, "all in context".
> You're trying to provide
> reasoning for why I'd never be able to restrict
> absolutely, and you
> simply won't be able to do it. {ro __ ro penbi
> poi [in my hand {nau}]}
> means one, single thing, and exactly the one
> I'm talking about (it's
> an absolute restriction). The only vague things
> are vi, ca, and
> perhaps even nau. If I change those into poi,
> "the one that is within
> a meter of me and 1 minute of this-time", then,
> well, there you go.
> The imperfection of my examples really doesn't
> obscure my point here.

I am not sure what "restrict absolutely" means
here.  You may be able to give a description that
only one thing in fact (or maybe even in
principle) meets.  It will not be perfectly
precise (we dould always find features that are
not covered and that might conceivably make a
difference), just precise enough to pick out a
unique referent (if any).  Note that this is
still not specific in the relevant sense (if this
is still part of the discussion). The speaker can
add to even this whatever is needed to assure
that the hearer is has the same view of context
as he does. Just saying "in context" does not
help, since it is always in context; what is
needed -- if anything is -- is to clarify what
context is vbeing used (or, in other words, what
things are to be counted as referentws of {penbi}
or {cribe} for present purposes).

> > vary with the locution.  I think that the
> chasing
> > bears become pretty decisive for {le cribe};
> {lo
> > criber is less clear and more adaptable (add
> {pi
> > zasti} for example).  {lo cribe romei} is
> even
> > more like to be general -- out of immediate
> > context, and  {ro da poi cribre} even more
> so.
> > So there are several ways to jump from talk
> about
> > those chasing bears to bears in general, all
> > existing bears, or even all possible bears
> > (indeed all impossible ones as well). 
> (Though I
> 
> Ok, what are these ways? In a context that
> overwhelmingly favors
> not-all-bears, I want to "jump out", and talk
> about "all things such
> that are bears". How do I do this?

Well, you might talk of {cribe poi nau zasti} for
example.  Just about anything will do: the very
fact that you are modifying the predicate is a
sign that you are going after something other
than what the predicate standing alone means in
the assumed context.  The fact that all of the
presupposed bears obviously exist means that
referring to the "existing bears" is meant to
take us to another, broader, context (to say
"existing bears" referring only to the delimited
set of bears, which exist, would be redundant,
against one of the rules of conversation). As
xorxes says: how do you do it in English? the
same will work in Lojban.  
 
> > do have to admire the sang froid of someone
> being
> > chased by a honey-eater and discussing the
> > general characteristics of such beasts.)
> > For your particular case, {lo ro cribe naku
> cpare
> > lo tricu} or some such, the first thinbg I'd
> note
> > is that this is not a very natural way of
> sying
> > this.  More immediate would be {no cribe cu
> cpare
> > lo tricu}, in which case the need for {ro}
> > disappears and a whole new set of
> presuppositions
> > comes into play.
> 
> >From an English standpoint it's not natural.

Also from Lojban, because from Logic.

> But that's beside the
> point. If you want an example of ro that can't
> be switched around for
> the sake of sounding natural, just consider
> "all bears can climb
> trees", {__ ro cribe cu cpare lo tricu} .

Well, we do get into a personality issue here.  I
tend to read (wherever possible) {lo ro cribe cu
cpare lo tricu} in a singular sense "All the
bears are climbing trees," xorxes tends to read
it as "All bears climb trees."  Consequently, it
is important to note changes in focus and context
-- and modality (one can be general about
particular things as well as general ones).



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.