[lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le

["Maxim Katcharov" <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

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

Quoting xorxes:

<<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).>>

> use of {ro} is inconsistent, then so is the
> English use of "all," the main difference I see

Yes, it is. Just like the English use of most English words is inconsistent.

> 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

I understand this usage of {ro}, and my {L_ cribe} (a lack of ro)
implements this usage. However, your {__ ro cribe} implements this
usage, /and/ another usage - either "jump out of context", or "all
ever" -- the former I consider basically the same as the first usage
(and thus useless), the latter I implement with {L_ ro cribe}.

> 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

Yep. These factors are used to help the listener pick out which things
are being spoken of. Another (or at least another use of) context is
using it to place things relative to it: if we didn't have this
context, we wouldn't know what "now", or "before", or "tomorrow", or
"here" meant, because they're all relative to the current context. The
latter is necessary just about always, but the former is only
necessary when you aren't being precise enough (when you aren't
restricting enough).

When I say "this pen here-now on my table is blue", I use relative
context (the latter), and disambiguating context is unnecessary
altogether.

> 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?

Quoting xorxes and myself:

<<me: How would you say "let's talk about all bears that have ever existed"?
> xorxes:
> Something like:
>
>   e'u mi'o casnu lo ro cribe poi pu ja ca zasti
me:
Not by your rules. Here you are inviting me to talk, out of the bears
that are in context, of the ones that have existed and exist. This is
clearly inconsistent. When does {__ ro} refer to all bears? When
someone includes the word zasti after a poi? When all bears in context
clearly already exist? "Aha, clearly he's not talking about all bears
already in context, because I thought that they all exist... wait, was
he talking about more than existing bears then"? And what if all bears
in context don't exist now-before, and I want to suggest talking of
the ones that do? Do the rules of Lojban change based on the context
(all bears in context meet restrictions = new context, if they don't =
modification of current context)?>>

There.

It's impossible for you to specify the context
(disambiguating-context), because you can't jump out of the current
context in order to do so. You basically have to make a statement
that's nonsensical when applied to the current context, and then the
listener says "uh, ok, I guess we're not talking about bears under
that context anymore (or maybe my notion of the previous context was
wrong?), so I'll make a guess as to what the context is now" - and
there's still no guarantee that that the listener will choose the
correct context: If I try to jump out with your {ro} (or your
{rosai}), there's still no guarantee that it'll be all bears - maybe
you're talking about all bears in some other "contextual sense".

> > 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

Enough to let the listener know that you're talking about this pen and
no other, the two cubs that are yours and no other, all bears that
ever existed and not a subset, etc.

> description which only one thing meets, it is
> pretty pointless to add to it if your purpose is

Yeah, it is. You misunderstand my position if you think that I'm
saying we need to be needlessly specific.

> 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

No, I'm not at all talking about giving an object a complete description.


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.