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

[lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le

On 5/11/06, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

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


Yes. Both, but more clearly: I'm presenting a case where {ro} is
applied inconsistantly. It's used just fine because two seperate
concepts of {ro} are used interchangably. A few emails ago, xorxes
presented two positions - my current task is to show that they are
being used interchangably, and that using them interchangably is
inconsistant, and hence a bad thing.


--- 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


Precision in picking out a referant has nothing to do with describing
the referant down to the last molecule. It's enough to give a
description that only the-thing(s)-you-refer-to can meet.


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).



So the meaning of {penbi} can change based on context? I really do
disagree, unless you're talking about verificity.


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.