[lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le

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

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

> 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.

Well, I am not sure how much more clearly since I
am not clear what the two approaches are that you
see as being used and as bsiing inconsistent with
one another.  It seems to me that if the Lojban
use of {ro} is inconsistent, then so is the
English use of "all," the main difference I see
being that we have tried to lay out the Lojban
use with some care, whereas -- linguists aside --
English speakers are pretty unaware what is going
on.  {ro} (like "all") means everything (or the
named sort) in the domain of discoure.  What is
in that domain -- particularly of the sort in
question -- varies with the context (which is a
fairly broad concept, involving what is said,
what has been said, what is in the attention of
the conversants, and probably countless other
things encompassing the whole range of the
conversant's experiences and knowledge).  The
speaker needs to be sure that what he says fits
into the existing context or change it in
recognizable ways.  He does not always do so --
or does not do so successfully -- so muddling can
-- and does -- occur.  And then the adjustments
have to be made.  But in all this, where is the
inconsistency?  Indeed, where the two usages?
> > --- 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.

Enough for what?  If you get down to a
description which only one thing meets, it is
pretty pointless to add to it if your purpose is
to pick out exactly one thing (or, more likely,
at most one thing), if your purpose is to give a
complete description of a thing then obviously
you will usually have more work to do -- and
can't always do it.  You still don't have
specificity (if that is still a relevant remark
-- I am not sure).

> > 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.

No, the meaning of {penbi} does not change; what
is available to be counted a pen in the
discussion may well change -- "available" in the
sense of being in the domain of discourse.
 



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.