[lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le

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

On 5/12/06, Seth Gordon <sethg@ropine.com> wrote:
> Maxim Katcharov wrote:
> > On 5/11/06, Seth Gordon <sethg@ropine.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I have skimmed some of this discussion, so pardon me if I missed an
> >> important detail, but....
> >>
> >> If I understand Maxim's argument, he wants {lo ro cribe} to refer to
> >> every bear that exists or may exist, unbounded by any context
> >> established by the conversation.  By this definition, {lo ro cribe}
> >
> >
> > Indeed. This would allow one to define the context exactly, instead of
> > leaving it up to the listener to guess it.
>
> I don't think it's ever possible to "define the context exactly"; every
> act of communication has a context, and there's no way to eliminate the
> requirement for a shared understanding of what that context is.  No
> matter how much explicit information you add to your message, there will
> always be something else lurking in the background.  (Whatever you say
> explicitly is no longer the context of the message, it's part of the
> message itself.)

There's a difference between context as in setting, and context as in
all that stuff that helps you figure out what is being said. When I
say {__ ro penbi poi cpana ti [*pats desk*]}, you don't need the
latter sort of context to determine that I mean this one pen that is
on my desk, but of course you need the setting.

> Fortunately, in most communication between human beings, speakers are
> capable of knowing what information they can safely leave out and
> audiences are capable of either recognizing the context that they need
> to apply, or asking for clarification when they are confused.
>
> Even answering "2 + 2 = ?" requires a shared understanding that we are
> dealing with the set of integers rather than, say, the set of integers
> modulo 3.

I would say that this is different from what is being discussed.
You're talking about knowing the actual definitions of words. If
someone thinks that bears are cats, or numbers that you've defined
henceforth to be modulo 3 are modulo 13, you have a different sort of
problem.

> >> rather have the freedom to have a conversation in Lojban in the museum,
> >> say {lo ro cribe cu morsi}, and be understood as saying that all the
> >> bears *in this museum* are dead.
> >>
> >
> > My suggestion is that {lo cribe cu morsi} mean exactly that (blank
> > inner quantifier).
>
> One of the things I like about Lojban grammar is that (to borrow a maxim
> from a completely different language) "you don't pay for what you don't
> use"--if, for example, your audience will be able to infer the time of
> an event that you are describing, then you can leave out explicit tense
> markers in your statements.  The decision to make {lo cribe cu morsi}
> carry no information about the number of bears involved seems to be in
> that spirit, and I see no reason to prefer a different default.

My default /is/ what you describe right here. When you don't specify a
default inner quantifier, the listener will automatically think "all
relevant things", just as when you leave out time tense, they'll think
"all relevant times".

You had said: "{lo ro cribe cu morsi}, and be understood as saying
that all the bears *in this museum* are dead". If you had said {lo
cribe cu morsi}, the effect would be the same, would it not? The
listener would assume that you mean all bears in the museum.


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.